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

  • Thread starter Thread starter fakename
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
thistle said:
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?
Click to expand...
No, but sometimes they don’t answer either way.

That hardly proves that I’m “looking for sin” it only proves that I’m wrong a lot.

(What else are questions for? Surely one does not simply ask questions to be proved right?)
 
fakename said:
No, but sometimes they don’t answer either way.

That hardly proves that I’m “looking for sin” it only proves that I’m wrong a lot.

(What else are questions for? Surely one does not simply ask questions to be proved right?)
Click to expand...
It indicates you may well be suffering from scrupulosity (having read your threads).
 
thistle said:
It indicates you may well be suffering from scrupulosity (having read your threads).
Click to expand...
I’ll ask a priest (again).

But the point is, since when is being mistaken a sure sign of scrupulosity?

I suppose asking many questions about sins could be a sign of scrupulosity but it is even then only a sign and not a sufficient or necessary cause of scrupulosity.

Indeed, it seems that neither is being wrong. But I think that you have not answered my questions and they need an answer.
 
fakename said:
I’ll ask a priest (again).

But the point is, since when is being mistaken a sure sign of scrupulosity?

I suppose asking many questions about sins could be a sign of scrupulosity but it is even then only a sign and not a sufficient or necessary cause of scrupulosity.

Indeed, it seems that neither is being wrong. But I think that you have not answered my questions and they need an answer.
Click to expand...
I answered your questions - several times in fact.

Assuming a priest does not make a mistake in the wording of an absolution then it is valid and nothing afterwards can render the absolution invalid, even deliberately refusing to do a penance, albeit that would be a new sin.

As to your other issue you are either sure or unsure if you did your penance. There is nothing in between.
 
St. Francis read the scriptures and consider them in a strong interpretation the rule of life. He recommended the reading of scriptures so to understand how to act and not for the reasons to impress people with knowledge. Thus from the recommendation came his quote of Second Corinthians, “Who also hath made us fit ministers of the new testament, not in the letter, but in the spirit. For the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.” (2 Cor 3:6)

Given the gravity against a soul to be the “light of the world” it would be a sin against prudence to neglect the reading of the scriptures. Yes, it is not a formal “precept of the Church” nevertheless it does not have to be. For generally our Church, is our mother and teacher (cf. CCC 169). We should put all into practice what she recommends for that is what love calls us, to be prudent children. If we do not read for love, then we are not truly reading. “Amen I say to you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, shall not enter into it.” (Mk 10:15)

The universal Church recommends scripture reading in a number of ways, including in the Second Vatican Council (n. 25),"The sacred Synod also earnestly and especially urges all the Christian faithful, especially religious, to learn by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures the “excellent knowledge of Jesus Christ” (Phil 3:8). What the Church reveals should not be doubted. That would be a sin against faith and against the first commandment. And in a number of cases doubt is a mortal sin.
 
fakename said:
I’ll ask a priest (again).

But the point is, since when is being mistaken a sure sign of scrupulosity?
Click to expand...
Being mistaken is not a sure sign of scrupulosity.

Being told Random Activity A is not a sin, and then asking the question in a dozen different ways, “Well, is Random Activity *A1 *a sin?” Or, “What if I do Random Activity A but do Random Activity B before–is that a sin?”

*That’s *a sure sign of scrupulosity. 🤷
 
PRmerger said:
Being mistaken is not a sure sign of scrupulosity.

Being told Random Activity A is not a sin, and then asking the question in a dozen different ways, “Well, is Random Activity *A1 *a sin?” Or, “What if I do Random Activity A but do Random Activity B before–is that a sin?”

*That’s *a sure sign of scrupulosity. 🤷
Click to expand...
It’s totally possible that some activity is not what you think it is.

It’s also possible that one does not have a consistent theory for the goodness of activity A and therefore one needs to ask about the goodness of activity A1.

Finally, there’s nothing to prevent one activity from being analyzed from different POV, so that there’s different moral outcomes for each manner of doing any random activity.

For all these reasons, questions get asked.
 
fakename said:
It’s totally possible that some activity is not what you think it is.

It’s also possible that one does not have a consistent theory for the goodness of activity A and therefore one needs to ask about the goodness of activity A1.

Finally, there’s nothing to prevent one activity from being analyzed from different POV, so that there’s different moral outcomes for each manner of doing any random activity.

For all these reasons, questions get asked.
Click to expand...
And that’s ^^ what makes it scrupulosity. 🤷
 
My quote from the Second Vatican Council is from Dei Verbum (the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top