Is it a mortal or venial sin (or sin at all) to not read the bible?

[fakename]

And just to double check but, works that have contents that are taken from the bible are also considered “reading the bible” too right (like Summa Theologica or a biblical commentary)?

 

[Rejoice_Always]

Throughout much of Christian history, the faithful have been illiterate – so, I’d say that it is not a sin at all.

 

[krusty007]

During the middle ages, only monks, clergy, and the highest nobility were literate and allowed to read the bible. It wasn’t until Joahaness Gutenburg developed the pring press did editions of the bible become common-place. So I think, it is not a sin at all.

 

[Polycarp1]

Not making any effort to seek Christian perfection would be a sin and ultimately deadly but not reading the bible alone (while recommended) would not in itself and alone constitute this. There are many ways a person can study and grow spiritually.

I think that beyond just reading the bible and other Church approved spiritual writers a person has to study and pray for knowledge, wisdom and understanding.

 

[meltzerboy]

And just to double check but, works that have contents that are taken from the bible are also considered “reading the bible” too right (like Summa Theologica or a biblical commentary)?

Jews have a responsibility to study the Torah, but I don’t think it is sinful not to. However, it is said that studying Torah helps prevent us from committing sins.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

It is not a sin. However, if would be a good idea to read, if not understand, much of the written source of the Catholic belief system.

 

[coachkfan1]

During the middle ages, only monks, clergy, and the highest nobility were literate and allowed to read the bible. It wasn’t until Joahaness Gutenburg developed the pring press did editions of the bible become common-place. So I think, it is not a sin at all.

Yes, but NOW most people in Western Civilization CAN read. I am not sure how to categorize it as sin, as it does take a certain level of intelligence and understanding to read and comprehend Scripture, but I would think that for those with that level of intelligence and understanding that not reading your Bible might fall under the sin of sloth. I think that as we grow in our faith walk that we need to participate more and more in things that help us to grow in holiness, i.e. Bible reading, praying, attending Mass etc. THIS IS JUST MY OPINION.

 

[fakename]

Not making any effort to seek Christian perfection would be a sin and ultimately deadly but not reading the bible alone (while recommended) would not in itself and alone constitute this. There are many ways a person can study and grow spiritually.

I think that beyond just reading the bible and other Church approved spiritual writers a person has to study and pray for knowledge, wisdom and understanding.

But if it is a recommendation of a bishop or priest then it would be a sin not to read the bible because it would be the sin of disobedience or am I wrong?

And isn’t it the recommendation of a bishop? Of course, one could say that it was a suggestion that was not even tacitly expected to be followed so that no one sins but I’m not sure.

 

[Dhugz]

And just to double check but, works that have contents that are taken from the bible are also considered “reading the bible” too right (like Summa Theologica or a biblical commentary)?

We are not obliged to read the Bible, but the Church encourage us to do so, and we should read it in context so that we will not follow the footprints of those insane reading the Bible and established their own churches.

 

[MaryLouItalia]

“Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ”, a quotes of St. Jerome in the compedium of the cathechism. We have the chance to read the Bible so, why we should deprive of this privilege? We can read daily the Holy word simply reading the Scriptures of the day* that will be read in church.
Reading 1, Sirach 48:1-14
Responsorial Psalm, Psalms 97:1-2, 3-4, 5-6, 7
Gospel, Matthew 6:7-15

It’s not much, only few minutes.
You know that usually protestants think that we catholic have no knowledge about the Bible but sadly sometimes it’s true.
Ephesians 2:20-22 thanks to these words know I’m back in our church.

 

[thistle]

But if it is a recommendation of a bishop or priest then it would be a sin not to read the bible because it would be the sin of disobedience or am I wrong?

And isn’t it the recommendation of a bishop? Of course, one could say that it was a suggestion that was not even tacitly expected to be followed so that no one sins but I’m not sure.

You are wrong. A recommendation by definition is not an obligation.
For example, the Church strongly recommends we receive Communion frequently but its only an obligation once a year during Easter and its NOT a sin not to receive the rest of the year.

I would encourage everyone to read the Bible but its NOT a sin of any kind not to do so.

 

[Polycarp1]

But if it is a recommendation of a bishop or priest then it would be a sin not to read the bible because it would be the sin of disobedience or am I wrong?

And isn’t it the recommendation of a bishop? Of course, one could say that it was a suggestion that was not even tacitly expected to be followed so that no one sins but I’m not sure.

I belive here the Bishop is making a recommendation as a pastor of souls. Basically its his job to tell us what we should be doing order to gain heaven. I sure he is making the recommendation to you personally because in his judgement that is the next logical step that you particularly should be taking on your path to Christian perfection. He may not make the same recommendation to the next person he sees as their circumstance may be differentfrom yours. Complying with the Bishop’s recomendation is a freewill decision and I don’t think it is a strict case or matter of obedience.

While strongly encouraged it is not an infallible dogma of the Church that everyone must read the bible as not all people can or have the opportunity to read it.

 

[fakename]

You are wrong. A recommendation by definition is not an obligation.
For example, the Church strongly recommends we receive Communion frequently but its only an obligation once a year during Easter and its NOT a sin not to receive the rest of the year.

I would encourage everyone to read the Bible but its NOT a sin of any kind not to do so.

But Edmundus1581 says both:“In general I agree, but I think there are exceptions. Penance assigned in confession is the obvious example - it is inherently sinful not to do an assigned penance. Liturgy would be another matter. If the priest were to command that the people in the pews on the left approach communion before those on the right, then it would be a sin to disobey (without good reason). However, if he were to command me to stop dating a certain woman, just because he thinks she’s bad for me, and no other reason (eg. our marital statuses), then it would not be inherently sinful to disobey. I am struggling to think of any occasion, apart from penance, when it would be inherently sinful to not follow a priest’s command to me on a personal or even spiritual matter - even if he is correct, and the matter involves sin. He can withhold absolution for a just cause, but even then if I don’t do his required action (eg. stop living with my girlfriend) then my sin is not one of disobedience. I think that the Church does not give priests such authority.”

and:

"Just one question. Whilst in confession did you agree to do whatever it was the priest “recommended”, or did you just politely listen? In my experience, the priest’s advice is usually given as a monologue and I listen politely and nod with a manner that says “Yes, I will try”, but not necessarily “I will do it” - and the priest understands that is my response also. If the priest is more clear and firm on a matter, then I don’t say “yes” unless I mean it, and, consequently, I am obliged to perform the action afterwards.

It’s a two way dialog. If you have agreed to go to confession more frequently then you are more obliged than if the priest offered it as advice, without you explicitly agreeing."

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=669793

Taken together, I think that his examples imply the general rule that you should follow a priest’s recommendation unless one has the knowledge that he does not expect you to follow his advice. But mostly, a priest expects you to follow his advice (like if a priest advices you to pray to the heart of Jesus, he is not speaking in vain but wants his congregants to do this). So in this arbitrary instance, I think that it is more likely than not that one has to follow the priest’s advice.

Also in my thread on authority, St. Francis (not the real one) said, "If what the bishop says is in line with how one practices the Faith, then yes. If a superior commands someone to do something immoral, that would be a wrongful command which we are not to obey.

So if the bishop said we should all go to Sunday Mass on Tuesday, we should not obey, but if he says we should all pray for the bishop emeritus, then we should. "

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=682346

In conjunction with what Edmundus1581 said, I think that this implies that most things priests and bishops say are supposed to be like commands in that the priests implicitly expect us to follow them and so the parishioners must follow them. The general rule is that unless a priest commands us to do something immoral or if a priest does not expect us to do what he asks, then we should do what he says. Of course this leads to certain problems like how to differentiate a command from a recommendation (since their differences seem to be purely differences stemming from both the intentions of the commander and the commanded and it also overlooks the problem that if a priest is wrong and his congregants won’t be willing to follow his recommendations, then do his commands become recommendations and so-on spawning many antinomies).

So either you think that the priest doesn’t expect people to follow his advice or you think something else (perhaps that the priest is only expecting at least one person to follow his advice which entails that not anyone will have an obligation to do as he asks or perhaps you believe that the priest expects you to only take his advice as a suggestion and so he both asks un-vainly and w/o expecting you to perform the act which was the subject of his advice.)?

 

[fakename]

I belive here the Bishop is making a recommendation as a pastor of souls. Basically its his job to tell us what we should be doing order to gain heaven. I sure he is making the recommendation to you personally because in his judgement that is the next logical step that you particularly should be taking on your path to Christian perfection. He may not make the same recommendation to the next person he sees as their circumstance may be differentfrom yours. Complying with the Bishop’s recomendation is a freewill decision and I don’t think it is a strict case or matter of obedience.

While strongly encouraged it is not an infallible dogma of the Church that everyone must read the bible as not all people can or have the opportunity to read it.

He never said anything to me personally but he was addressing the whole congregation with his suggestions in a sermon.

 

[Polycarp1]

He never said anything to me personally but he was addressing the whole congregation with his suggestions in a sermon.

In that case I would just consider it a general suggestion, although an excellent one for people who have the ability and opportunity to do so along with access to the teaching authority of the Church.

If you have the ability and opportunity to read God’s word and neglect it obviously that could have a detrimental effect on ones spiritual growth that I’m sure your Bishop wants his flock to avoid.

Len

 

[thistle]

But Edmundus1581 says both:“In general I agree, but I think there are exceptions. Penance assigned in confession is the obvious example - it is inherently sinful not to do an assigned penance. Liturgy would be another matter. If the priest were to command that the people in the pews on the left approach communion before those on the right, then it would be a sin to disobey (without good reason). However, if he were to command me to stop dating a certain woman, just because he thinks she’s bad for me, and no other reason (eg. our marital statuses), then it would not be inherently sinful to disobey. I am struggling to think of any occasion, apart from penance, when it would be inherently sinful to not follow a priest’s command to me on a personal or even spiritual matter - even if he is correct, and the matter involves sin. He can withhold absolution for a just cause, but even then if I don’t do his required action (eg. stop living with my girlfriend) then my sin is not one of disobedience. I think that the Church does not give priests such authority.”

and:

"Just one question. Whilst in confession did you agree to do whatever it was the priest “recommended”, or did you just politely listen? In my experience, the priest’s advice is usually given as a monologue and I listen politely and nod with a manner that says “Yes, I will try”, but not necessarily “I will do it” - and the priest understands that is my response also. If the priest is more clear and firm on a matter, then I don’t say “yes” unless I mean it, and, consequently, I am obliged to perform the action afterwards.

It’s a two way dialog. If you have agreed to go to confession more frequently then you are more obliged than if the priest offered it as advice, without you explicitly agreeing."

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=669793

Taken together, I think that his examples imply the general rule that you should follow a priest’s recommendation unless one has the knowledge that he does not expect you to follow his advice. But mostly, a priest expects you to follow his advice (like if a priest advices you to pray to the heart of Jesus, he is not speaking in vain but wants his congregants to do this). So in this arbitrary instance, I think that it is more likely than not that one has to follow the priest’s advice.

Also in my thread on authority, St. Francis (not the real one) said, "If what the bishop says is in line with how one practices the Faith, then yes. If a superior commands someone to do something immoral, that would be a wrongful command which we are not to obey.

So if the bishop said we should all go to Sunday Mass on Tuesday, we should not obey, but if he says we should all pray for the bishop emeritus, then we should. "

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=682346

In conjunction with what Edmundus1581 said, I think that this implies that most things priests and bishops say are supposed to be like commands in that the priests implicitly expect us to follow them and so the parishioners must follow them. The general rule is that unless a priest commands us to do something immoral or if a priest does not expect us to do what he asks, then we should do what he says. Of course this leads to certain problems like how to differentiate a command from a recommendation (since their differences seem to be purely differences stemming from both the intentions of the commander and the commanded and it also overlooks the problem that if a priest is wrong and his congregants won’t be willing to follow his recommendations, then do his commands become recommendations and so-on spawning many antinomies).

So either you think that the priest doesn’t expect people to follow his advice or you think something else (perhaps that the priest is only expecting at least one person to follow his advice which entails that not anyone will have an obligation to do as he asks or perhaps you believe that the priest expects you to only take his advice as a suggestion and so he both asks un-vainly and w/o expecting you to perform the act which was the subject of his advice.)?

Listen to what everyone is telling you. It is NOT disobedience and it is NOT a sin to ignore any recommendations and suggestions by bishops and priests.
I’ve looked again at many of your threads. You seem to be searching for sin in everything.
You really should have a talk to your priest as this smacks of scrupulosity.

 

[tabycat]

Generally, not a sin, but it maybe a sin if you are taking a class and reading the Bible, or at least part of it, as an asingment and you do not read it then it might be a sin. :irish1:

 

[fakename]

Listen to what everyone is telling you. It is NOT disobedience and it is NOT a sin to ignore any recommendations and suggestions by bishops and priests.
I’ve looked again at many of your threads. You seem to be searching for sin in everything.
You really should have a talk to your priest as this smacks of scrupulosity.

I’m so not scrupulous it’s scary (IMO).

But perhaps I’ll just ask now: what is scrupulosity? I’ve always thought that it meant an unreasonable belief that you’re always sinful, a consequent distrust in what even the most reputable sources tell you, and a disposition to be hand-wringing, sweaty-palmed, and heart-attack inducing-ly fearful. Then you finally go off the deep end and become really sinful.

But since I don’t have any of those symptoms then I seem to be unscrupulous (a rather misleading connotation).

Yet it’s totally possible that I’m scrupulous and don’t know it. So again, let me ask you is there something about being scrupulous that I’m just not understanding and that’s why I don’t think that I am? Is there some way in which I am unreasonably over-analytical or doubtful(after all I once got so passionate about learning about the Catholic religion and philosophy that I did get chest pains and I had to rest a little)? I swear I’m just being curious or philosophically doubtful (which I read was okay in the Catholic Encyclopedia) but maybe you know better?

I’ll talk to a priest about it too or something.

Secondly, and more to the point of the thread, why would the priest’s recommendation not be more obligatory, when everyone else seems to have told me (by implication) that it would? Is it because of the reasons I listed or others?

 

[fakename]

Listen to what everyone is telling you. It is NOT disobedience and it is NOT a sin to ignore any recommendations and suggestions by bishops and priests.
I’ve looked again at many of your threads. You seem to be searching for sin in everything.
You really should have a talk to your priest as this smacks of scrupulosity.

By implication though, do you mean to say that in all of my recent threads (how recent btw) the things that I think are sinful are not sinful?

Surely that’s what you mean by saying “you seem to be searching for sin in everything” as if to say that I see sin where it is not?

If you answer yes to my interpretation then that immediately answers all those questions so that would be quite the boon to me. So please answer and also provide some reasoning if possible too but if not possible then you don’t have to. Also perhaps you should specify exactly which threads you are responding to.

Thanks if you do it.

 

[thistle]

By implication though, do you mean to say that in all of my recent threads (how recent btw) the things that I think are sinful are not sinful?

Surely that’s what you mean by saying “you seem to be searching for sin in everything” as if to say that I see sin where it is not?

If you answer yes to my interpretation then that immediately answers all those questions so that would be quite the boon to me. So please answer and also provide some reasoning if possible too but if not possible then you don’t have to. Also perhaps you should specify exactly which threads you are responding to.

Thanks if you do it.

I don’t want to get the thread closed because we are going off topic and a moderator may jump in.

However, of all your threads asking if particular things were sins or not did any poster say you were correct and that what you asked about was indeed a sin?