Is the whole Bible read through cover to cover if you attend Mass everyday?

Or are some chapters or books not used during Mass?

Just wondering.:hmmm:

God Bless!

Nope. See this informative article “Lectionary Statistics”:

HA! My Catholic school teacher lied to me in 5th grade!

Thanks for the link, very interesting.

No. Even with the new three-year Sunday lectionary and two-year weekday lectionary, not all of the Bible is covered. A statistical study suggests that the current lectionary only covers up to 71.5% of the New Testament and 13.5% of the Old Testament, at best.

All that being said, there must be something to be said about Mass being an exposition of specific lessons taught by Scripture, and not an exercise on getting through every single detail in the Bible. The Mass is meant to be a divine act of worship of God, not a comprehensive Bible study. If one wishes to perform a rote study of every sentence in the Bible, there are times and places for such things, but the Mass is not one of them.

It is a bit of a Protestant legacy to think that one must memorise the whole of Scripture in order to be a “good Christian”, hence modern Christians have become so obsessed with memorising the Bible. God demanded no such thing. We should therefore avoid falling into that trap of believing that more Scripture is always better. :slight_smile:

On that note about memorizing scripture… Let’s not forget that even Satan can quote scripture. Just because someone can quote scripture doesn’t make them a holy person. Walking in the ways of the Lord are what make a person truly holy.

If you read the office of readings daily and go to mass I hear you will hear 97% of sripture

My first two reactions:

  1. Yes, but what if you only counted parts that AREN’T genealogies?
  2. Does anyone else feel sorry for Obadiah, being the only book that’s NEVER read from at Mass?

Maybe they didn’t lie…you read THROUGH the Bible not read THE ENTIRE Bible

One chapter, of 21 verses? And all of it is a prophetic oracle against Edom? Feel sorry? Nah… not really.

Memorizing scripture is what the Early Fathers did, hence why Church Fathers like St. Ephrem and St. Jacob of Sarug were able to write metric homilies based on essentially making complex typologies. The memorization of Scripture is both a Semitic and monastic practice. More Scripture is, in fact, better and the idea that the Bible is unessential is an overreaction by the Latin Church to Protestants and an insult to the holy words of Scripture itself. I have always found the joke fitting for the majority of Roman Catholics about using the Bible like a software agreement - scrolling to the end and clicking ‘I accept.’

And maybe worthy to remember that there is scripture in other parts of mass other than the reading. For exemplo: prayers (Hail Mary, etc), sacerdote sayings, hymns and so on.

And Judith too! That’s a 16-chapter, 340 verses total, book that gets no Mass time.

Nope. But do as I do. I read one chapter from the O.T in the morning and one from the N.T in the evening, that way you will read The Bible from cover to cover over and over. One warning though, make sure you are not in a hurry when you reach Psalm 119, that is the longest.

And your caricature that I argue the Bible as unessential is an overreaction as well. I am referring to the Protestant obsession with making the common man memorise Scripture rather than live its lessons. I am well aware that the Church Fathers have always done so - the Catena Aurea, one of my most favourite works, would not be so rich had it not been for the Church Fathers who spent time to memorise and contemplate on scripture - but they did not obligate this upon every member of the faithful as do the Protestants. This is what I am talking about.

I understand where you are coming, as I often find myself on your side of your argument as well (largely against fellow Catholics, as you note). Yes you are correct that more Scripture is generally better, but you are countering an argument I did not make. I did not argue that we should study less Scripture or that Scripture is not important to the common man. Reading more Scripture in one’s own study is of great benefit to one’s spirituality, of course, but we are speaking of how much of it should be used in Mass. The use of Scripture in Mass is also subject to other considerations, such as ensuring that the passages create a coherent narrative in teaching Biblical lessons. There are many details such as Old Testament geneologies which are of interest to Biblical scholars, but are difficult to fit in the public worship of the Church. Including them would not add significantly to the value of the lesson.

We must remember that original topic of this thread is about whether the Mass covers all of the Bible. My response is meant to address the impression that simply because the Mass does not cover 100% of the Bible that there is some deficiency that must be addressed. This is why I say that we should not be aiming towards 100% coverage of the Bible in Mass, and therefore why I say such an ideal is not necessarily better. If we wish to argue about whether people should study the Bible, that is a whole different argument altogether, and one in which I will take a different stand. :slight_smile:

AMEN, Thank You and God Bless, Memaw

Memorization was indeed necessary to preserve the Word when the Bible was hand copied by monks and an entire local church may have had only one copy if that. However, most everyone who wants a Bible today, has at least one (I have 4 different translations). Studying the Bible and understanding it is by far more important. Protestants pride themselves on memorization, that is fine. Catholics worship and venerate the Word during worship. However, the Mass is first and foremost worship of the triune God. The only ones saying the Bible is unessential are the critics of the Catholic church, not the Church.

How’d I miss that? Yeah, why doesn’t Judith get any Mass time? (Same with 1 Chronicles, even if those 9 chapters of genealogies are annoying)

Maybe but I’m willing to bet you won’t find Catholic dogma like the Holy Trinity and the like in there. In fact, there is not that much written there on the life of Christ, especially of His first 30 years; yet we know the exact place, the approximate time and date of His birth, and the fact that He was teaching in the Temple when he was young.

Maybe but I’m willing to bet you won’t find Catholic dogma like the Holy Trinity in there.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit