My impressions of the Evangelical Lutheran church I visited

[Stilldreamn]

I realize that Lutherans have distanced themselves from much of what Luther actually wrote and said, but is what follows below part of that disavowed material?

In his treatise on marriage, Luther claims that Jesus permits divorce and remarriage in the case of adultery; this is a common mistake that I’ve addressed before. But what’s uncommon is one of the other exceptions that Luther claims: namely, that if your wife won’t have sex with you, this constitutes grounds for divorce, having the state force her to sleep with you, or having her executed:

The third case for divorce is that in which one of the parties deprives and avoids the other, refusing to fulfil the conjugal duty or to live with the other person. For example, one finds many a stubborn wife like that who will not give in, and who cares not a whit whether her husband falls into the sin of unchastity ten times over. Here it is time for the husband to say, “If you will not, another will; the maid will come if the wife will not.” Only first the husband should admonish and warn his wife two or three times, and let the situation be known to others so that her stubbornness becomes a matter of common knowledge and is rebuked before the congregation. If she still refuses, get rid of her; take an Esther and let Vashti go, as King Ahasuerus did [Esther 1:1 :17]. …]

When one resists the other and refuses the conjugal duty she is robbing the other of the body she had bestowed upon him. This is really contrary to marriage, and dissolves the marriage. **For this reason the civil government must compel the wife, or put her to death. If the government fails to act, the husband must reason that his wife has been stolen away and slain by robbers; he must seek another. **We would certainly have to accept it if someone’s life were taken from him. Why then should we not also accept it if a wife steals herself away from her husband, or is stolen away by others?

Fittingly, Luther’s support for this barbaric position isn’t Mark 10:11, which flatly forbids divorce and remarriage (describing it as adultery), but the practice of the pagan king Ahasuerus.

catholicdefense.blogspot.com/​

The original blogger did not provide the source of the quote from Luther, so any comments from those who know more about this would be appreciated.

Hmm. I have not read all of Luther’s works, but I see none of that in the Book of Concord. Therefore it appears to be nothing more or less than personal opinion heavily larded with hyperbole.

I am beyond thankful that there was no such thing as a Twitter feed 500 years ago, else poor Luther would need an army of PR people to re-spin his remarks.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Why would I go back again? The Lutherans were welcoming and personal, the Catholic Church has always been impersonal and rather cold. Why, years ago I used to attend daily Mass a couple of times a week. Never did I get more than a nod from the, mainly, ladies who attended there. The Priest would retreat immediately.

I came to this place, someone actually asked me my name. That means a lot to a shy person such as me. I went to a Catholic Church for almost 20 years and remained feeling invisible, unministered to. This church has many fellowship and volunteering opportunities.

It took me 1 1/2 years to finally check it out. I thank God I did! They don’t put the barriers that the Catholic Church does. God’s grace can be had more easily, I sense.

I’ll continue to post my observations and perceptions as they develop.

You need to be slightly careful here! Attending church is not about socialising, its about worshipping God. I’m not catholic and I understand how enthusiastic other protestant services can be! Great music, great fellowship, some feel like rock concerts and you get a real rush - but is the message they teach correct? Is this how God wants us to worship him? I don’t know which is why I’m in between churches but as you are catholic I am guessing you believe that Christ founded the church, in its sacraments, in the Eucharist. If this is the case, you should attend mass! While its a shame, there isn’t the buzz in a catholic church, surerly its more important that Jesus is there? That your soul is enriched? That you worship and speak to God?

The Lutheran church didn’t even have a liturgy! Never mind the friendliness, where was God? Not invited by the sound of it! Also trust me, as soon as you stop attending protestant churches - they ignore you, don’t invite you to parties! While the way they are coming across may be harsh, at least your catholic friends here are concerned!

All the best

 

[steido01]

I realize that Lutherans have distanced themselves from much of what Luther actually wrote and said, but is what follows below part of that disavowed material?

In his treatise on marriage, Luther claims that Jesus permits divorce and remarriage in the case of adultery; this is a common mistake that I’ve addressed before. But what’s uncommon is one of the other exceptions that Luther claims: namely, that if your wife won’t have sex with you, this constitutes grounds for divorce, having the state force her to sleep with you, or having her executed:

The third case for divorce is that in which one of the parties deprives and avoids the other, refusing to fulfil the conjugal duty or to live with the other person. For example, one finds many a stubborn wife like that who will not give in, and who cares not a whit whether her husband falls into the sin of unchastity ten times over. Here it is time for the husband to say, “If you will not, another will; the maid will come if the wife will not.” Only first the husband should admonish and warn his wife two or three times, and let the situation be known to others so that her stubbornness becomes a matter of common knowledge and is rebuked before the congregation. If she still refuses, get rid of her; take an Esther and let Vashti go, as King Ahasuerus did [Esther 1:1 :17]. …]

When one resists the other and refuses the conjugal duty she is robbing the other of the body she had bestowed upon him. This is really contrary to marriage, and dissolves the marriage. **For this reason the civil government must compel the wife, or put her to death. If the government fails to act, the husband must reason that his wife has been stolen away and slain by robbers; he must seek another. **We would certainly have to accept it if someone’s life were taken from him. Why then should we not also accept it if a wife steals herself away from her husband, or is stolen away by others?
​

Randy, several points:

Firstly, you must understand Luther’s intention here. It is not to endorse some sort of free-for-all and end to the estate of marriage. Rather, it is in defense of it - so strong a defense, that he even uses over-the-top hyperbole to defend it. Marriage is, to Luther, the single most important unit of the natural order provided by God. Man and Wife become one flesh, and are to be indissoluble.

Secondly, consider the fact that refusal to consummate the marriage by one or both parties is grounds for divorce in both our churches (call it an “annulment,” “voidance,” or a “decree of nullity” if it eases your conscience - the effect is the same). If either, or both, should refuse to give themselves to the other, thereby denying their partner their very own flesh, then no union has existed.

Thirdly, Luther is most definitely using hyperbole when he states that a refusing woman should be put to death. But his point should be clear: Marriage, and the openness to procreation required in it, is THAT important. The wife has no right to deny her husband, and the husband no right to deny his wife; doing so is contrary to God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply.”

Fourthly, I wish Luther would have spent more time on the flipside of this issue (then again, what he writes here was right for his audience at that time) - that although partners ought not to deny each other, they likewise should not demand such difficult things of each other. Wives should submit to their husbands, but husbands must be willing to die for their wives, as Christ died for the church (Gal. 5:1) - daily, if it be required - die, by not demanding intimacy. Die, by not publicly humiliating her. Die, by occasionally doing the dishes. Luther does address this in On Christian Liberty, where he states “The Christian is lord of all subject to none, and at the same time, the most dutiful servant of all, subject to all.”

Finally, what, at all, did your post have to do with the OP? It seems like an ad hominem attack on Luther (uncharacteristic of your usual posts), when you already know Luther’s writing is not Lutheranism any more than John Doe’s writing is Catholicism. ​

 

[pablope]

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaryT777 View Post
The LCMS teaches the office of the Papacy is AntiChrist. Does that sound ecumenical to you?

But we do not refer to your leader/s as Anti-Christ…only in Lutheran circles…apparently where this still remains confessed to this day and age…

 

[underthelaw]

As I said, this post is in the Non-Catholic section, and is about the Evangelical Lutheran Church. I won’t be discussing Catholic requirements or doctrine here. You most certainly can, but I’ll exercise my free will and not participate in that conversation.

thanks 4 the inquirey-

all these responses seem to be that people are under the law- of performance–
gen 15- if you do this than God will do that__

so much for the Gospel of Grace-- unmerited favor for liers cheats - thieves - drunks - righetous-- chruch goers-- etc etc

yes according to the catholic church-- there are a thousand rules-- to guide you and keep you from comitting a “mortal sin”

( just like in the pharisees day with Jesus)

it a shame that Saint Paul didn’t stress the requirement – of attending mass–

he just said –

1 Corinthians 14:26

New International Version

What then shall we say, brothers and sisters?

When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up.

New Living Translation
Well, my brothers and sisters,** let’s summarize.**

When you meet together, one will sing, another will teach, another will tell some special revelation God has given, one will speak in tongues, and another will interpret what is said. But everything that is done must strengthen all of you.

English Standard Version

What then, brothers?

When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up.

 

[steido01]

But we do not refer to your leader/s as Anti-Christ…only in Lutheran circles…apparently where this still remains confessed to this day and age…

And you no longer call us heretics, in the formal sense, even if your church condemns as anathema our teachings. So we’re guilty of preaching a material heresy, but you don’t refer to us as heretics? Big deal. Who cares? A word is a word. Why attach all the unneeded feelings to it, especially when Lutheranism does not mean what other communions mean when they use that particular label?

Better to look for solutions, rather than object to the term for the term’s sake. Why has Lutheranism traditionally attached that label? Does it still apply? If so, why? For how long? What would need to change between our communions so this is no longer an issue?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Firstly, you must understand Luther’s intention here.

I’m trying. That’s why at the recommendation of a number of Lutherans here, I am about halfway through Bainton’s biography, Here I Stand.

You say this is hyperbole. How do you get that from the text?

You speak of consummation. How do you get that from the text?

As I said, I know that Lutherans ignore, overlook and/or disavow a lot of what he wrote - especially his blatant anti-Semitism. I was just curious what the thinking on this might be.

Finally, what, at all, did your post have to do with the OP? It seems like an ad hominem attack on Luther (uncharacteristic of your usual posts), when you already know Luther’s writing is not Lutheranism any more than John Doe’s writing is Catholicism.

Truth be told, I was lazy, and I didn’t want to start a new thread which might be perceived as you describe. So, I chose an existing “Lutheran” thread which I knew already had a good Lutheran audience who would provide a quick response.

 

[Randy_Carson]

thanks 4 the inquirey-

all these responses seem to be that people are under the law- of performance–
gen 15- if you do this than God will do that__

so much for the Gospel of Grace-- unmerited favor for liers cheats - thieves - drunks - righetous-- chruch goers-- etc etc

yes according to the catholic church-- there are a thousand rules-- to guide you and keep you from comitting a “mortal sin”

( just like in the pharisees day with Jesus)

it a shame that Saint Paul didn’t stress the requirement – of attending mass–

he just said –

1 Corinthians 14:26

New International Version

What then shall we say, brothers and sisters?

When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up.

New Living Translation
Well, my brothers and sisters,** let’s summarize.**

When you meet together, one will sing, another will teach, another will tell some special revelation God has given, one will speak in tongues, and another will interpret what is said. But everything that is done must strengthen all of you.

English Standard Version

What then, brothers?

When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up.

Perhaps our Bible Christian friend is less familiar with the Scriptures than he should be.

Hebrews 10:24-25
24 And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds, 25 not giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.

And, of course, when Jesus taught the Lord’s Prayer, He included: “Give us this day our daily bread.” Do you think Jesus was actually referring to the ordinary food? :nope:

Jesus is teaching us to rely of God, and the “daily bread” to which Jesus was referring was the manna from Heaven that the Jews received daily during their forty years in the desert.

How is that relevant? Well, dear Bible Christian, Jesus said,

8 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

Our daily bread is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ we receive in the Eucharist which is available each day at mass in the Catholic Church.

 

[Aslan10]

If I were the OP, reading this thread would only push me further away from my old Church. I understand the beliefs of the RCC, but making snide comments and ad hominem arguments against Protestant churches/its people, are no way to convince anyone of the truth. Too me, this thread is a perfect example of how pious Catholics view Protestantism behind their backs, but show ecumenical correctness to their faces.

For the record, I hope the OP goes back to their Parish to help make things better, or chooses to become part of a different Catholic Parish that might suit them better.

 

[Country_Gal]

The trouble with the Catholic Church is that, it is weak on fellowship and the Mass is not designed for one Christian to uplift another. The whole experience is impersonal, a requirement, an obligation. I think that’s why the hierarchy mandates it, it lets the leadership off the hook for the obvious lack of community in so many Catholic Churches.

Then people here come and say, you are going to hell for purposefully missing Mass. Well, thanks for reinforcing one of the biggest turn offs to Catholicism for me, black and white legalism and threats of Hell fire for breaking a rule. And threats of Hell for daring to explore another Christian Church!

I hope Pope Francis does something about this. It’s obvious from his statements that he has a different approach, one of actions motivated by love.

Another theme here that I should go to Mass at a church (the only Catholic Church within 25 miles btw) even though there is a priest there with a documented past association with a highly scandalous situation. As I said, I don’t want to go into details here because it’s probably against forum rules. But, I’m familiar with the priest from a previous Catholic Church I attended in another town, and also dislike him on a personal level.

So often I’ve seen the Catholic Church give us substandard pastors, then hold us hostage with a mandatory Mass requirement. Easily remedied by folks in more populous areas with lots of Catholic Churches of course.

Anyways, all of you arguing that I’ll go to Hell for missing Mass, save your breath. I don’t believe that and most people in the world don’t believe that. It’s a weak argument.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

The trouble with the Catholic Church is that, it is weak on fellowship and the Mass is not designed for one Christian to uplift another. The whole experience is impersonal, a requirement, an obligation. I think that’s why the hierarchy mandates it, it lets the leadership off the hook for the obvious lack of community in so many Catholic Churches.

Then people here come and say, you are going to hell for purposefully missing Mass. Well, thanks for reinforcing one of the biggest turn offs to Catholicism for me, black and white legalism and threats of Hell fire for breaking a rule. And threats of Hell for daring to explore another Christian Church!

I hope Pope Francis does something about this. It’s obvious from his statements that he has a different approach, one of actions motivated by love.

Another theme here that I should go to Mass at a church (the only Catholic Church within 25 miles btw) even though there is a priest there with a documented past association with a highly scandalous situation. As I said, I don’t want to go into details here because it’s probably against forum rules. But, I’m familiar with the priest from a previous Catholic Church I attended in another town, and also dislike him on a personal level.

So often I’ve seen the Catholic Church give us substandard pastors, then hold us hostage with a mandatory Mass requirement. Easily remedied by folks in more populous areas with lots of Catholic Churches of course.

Anyways, all of you arguing that I’ll go to Hell for missing Mass, save your breath. I don’t believe that and most people in the world don’t believe that. It’s a weak argument.

You understañd Catholicism better thàn me as im not catholic but isnt the mass obligation a doctrine not a discipline meaning it can’t change? I thought catholics had to accept the doctrines to be catholic?

I’m not saying I agree with the teaching but I know the catholic church teaches that missing mass without a good reason is mortal sin. If you don’t agree with this teaching, are you saying you are no longer catholic? You are right plenty of people don’t think you will go to hell for missing mass, but they are not catholic.

 

[Aslan10]

You are right plenty of people don’t think you will go to hell for missing mass, but they are not catholic.

Doubtful. Many Catholics would not subscribe to this doctrine, even if they did have knowledge of the prescribed teaching. Pew Forum:

"The share of all Catholics who say they attend Mass at least once a week has dropped from 47% in 1974 to 24% in 2012; among “strong” Catholics, it has fallen more than 30 points, from 85% in 1974 to 53% last year."

This is just in the USA. Imagine the numbers on a worldwide scale. You cannot tell me that the majority of Catholics, whether they are good at it or not, believe that they are going to hell if they don’t repent from missing mass this past Sunday. If they did, I imagine the weekly attendance wouldn’t be falling.

I wish the above statistics weren’t true, but it’s clear that the majority of those that call themselves Catholic, do not think they are in a state of mortal sin for missing mass on Sunday. And just because they don’t believe a certain teaching doesn’t make them “not Catholic.” It just means they aren’t in alignment with what their Church wishes for them to believe.

 

[smead2942]

The trouble with the Catholic Church is that, it is weak on fellowship and the Mass is not designed for one Christian to uplift another. The whole experience is impersonal, a requirement, an obligation. I think that’s why the hierarchy mandates it, it lets the leadership off the hook for the obvious lack of community in so many Catholic Churches.

Then people here come and say, you are going to hell for purposefully missing Mass. Well, thanks for reinforcing one of the biggest turn offs to Catholicism for me, black and white legalism and threats of Hell fire for breaking a rule. And threats of Hell for daring to explore another Christian Church!

I hope Pope Francis does something about this. It’s obvious from his statements that he has a different approach, one of actions motivated by love.

Another theme here that I should go to Mass at a church (the only Catholic Church within 25 miles btw) even though there is a priest there with a documented past association with a highly scandalous situation. As I said, I don’t want to go into details here because it’s probably against forum rules. But, I’m familiar with the priest from a previous Catholic Church I attended in another town, and also dislike him on a personal level.

So often I’ve seen the Catholic Church give us substandard pastors, then hold us hostage with a mandatory Mass requirement. Easily remedied by folks in more populous areas with lots of Catholic Churches of course.

Anyways, all of you arguing that I’ll go to Hell for missing Mass, save your breath. I don’t believe that and most people in the world don’t believe that. It’s a weak argument.

I addressed all of this in a previous post. I’ll reiterate what I said earlier since it address everything you just said.

What you’re missing here is the objective purpose of attending church.

We don’t go to church to hear happy-clappy praise & worship (or Christmas childrens sing-a-long) music or listen to a heartwarming sermon from a personable pastor. Nor do we go to church to have social hour.

Jesus didn’t found his One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church for any of those reasons. He didn’t say “You are Luther and on his rock I build my communal worship service”. He founded his Church to prepare the world for his Second Coming, to assist in the salvation of souls, and administer the Sacraments, especially the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Good music, coffee hour, and a nice pastor will not get you to Heaven. I’m not saying Lutherans will not go to Heaven. I’m criticizing your priorities. Anyone looking for a church for those reasons, Catholic or protestant, is severely misguided. However scandalous the priest may be and however much you dislike the setting doesn’t lift your Sunday obligation, nor does it change the fact that the Catholic Church is the TRUE CHURCH OF CHRIST. Find a different Catholic Church to attend if the local one isn’t right for you. Separating yourself from the Bride of Christ, the only Church able to consecrate the Body and Blood of our Savior, is a grave sin against God.

Saying “no” to God and “yes” to sensationalism is wrong, regardless of circumstance.

 

[steido01]

The trouble with the Catholic Church is that, it is weak on fellowship and the Mass is not designed for one Christian to uplift another. The whole experience is impersonal, a requirement, an obligation. I think that’s why the hierarchy mandates it, it lets the leadership off the hook for the obvious lack of community in so many Catholic Churches.

Liturgical churches, which includes most Catholics and most Lutherans, are all about lifting each other up. Heck, the penitential rite says as much straight from the get-go:

I confess to almighty God,
and to you, my brothers and sisters,
that I have greatly sinned
in my thoughts and in my words,
in what I have done,
and in what I have failed to do;
through my fault
through my fault
through my most grievous fault
Therefore, I ask blessed Mary, ever virgin,
all the angels and saints,
and you, my brothers and sisters,
to pray for me to the Lord our God.​

But remember, the service is what God does for us, not what we do for ourselves. Whether you “feel” good, welcome, or whatever has no bearing on the effectiveness of the Sacraments given for your benefit.

 

[smead2942]

So often I’ve seen the Catholic Church give us substandard pastors, then hold us hostage with a mandatory Mass requirement. Easily remedied by folks in more populous areas with lots of Catholic Churches of course.

Anyways, all of you arguing that I’ll go to Hell for missing Mass, save your breath. I don’t believe that and most people in the world don’t believe that. It’s a weak argument.

Again, if you go to church to hear the pastor, that’s the wrong reason to attend. We Catholics attend the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass so that we can receive the Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity of Christ Jesus. THAT is why Mass attendance is mandatory. Unlike our Protestant brethren, the sermon is not the climax of the service. Mass is not a praise and worship service, nor is it a service at all; it’s the perpetual sacrifice of Calvary made manifest. Whether you like your local priest or not, he was validly ordained and consecrates Holy Communion. Church is about GOD, not about our personal tastes. During Mass, look at the glorified Body of Christ instead of the one holding Him.

 

[MaryT777]

Liturgical churches, which includes most Catholics and most Lutherans, are all about lifting each other up. Heck, the penitential rite says as much straight from the get-go:

I confess to almighty God,
and to you, my brothers and sisters,
that I have greatly sinned
in my thoughts and in my words,
in what I have done,
and in what I have failed to do;
through my fault
through my fault
through my most grievous fault
Therefore, I ask blessed Mary, ever virgin,
all the angels and saints,
and you, my brothers and sisters,
to pray for me to the Lord our God.​

But remember, the service is what God does for us, not what we do for ourselves. Whether you “feel” good, welcome, or whatever has no bearing on the effectiveness of the Sacraments given for your benefit.

Great post.

 

[pianistclare]

Well, let’s see.
The OP came here talking about how great the Lutheran service was.
Wonderful. I’m genuinely glad it was great. I’m glad you felt welcome and uplifted by the children in song.
I’m also glad that people have reminded the OP that as fulfilling and nice as that service was, it did not fulfill her Sunday obligation as a Catholic. No one would be saying this if she did not volunteer this info. People are rightly concerned that she missed an opportunity for receiving Christ in Eucharist, regardless of laws, legalism, or whatever people want to call it.
People are generally sad that she missed Mass.
She is believing that the Lutheran church is “better” because people noticed and welcomed her. While many Stewardship committees everywhere continue to bemoan the fact that people want to be recognized at Mass, I can’t help but wish that people would be more concerned that Christ, present in the Tabernacle, and on the Sacrificial Altar would understand that HE recognize them, welcomes them, loves them beyond what they could hope for in terms of warmth, music, joy, and embraces them.
It’s wonderful thing to see our brother Christians open their arms to anyone who come through the doors of their churches. In the Catholic Church, we have the ultimate Greeter, Christ, the Lord.
I think what maybe some of us have rather clumsily said, is that THIS is why we attend the Catholic Mass. We feel good because of what we know, whether or not the priest is ill, having a bad day, the organist is cranky, or the Deacons abrupt, the children fussy, or the donuts stale afterward.
For us, we love the Mass. And we wish the OP would see it through this lens.
All of us have room to grow in the hospitality and kindness department. God willing, the OP can galvanize her parish to be more loving, more giving, more social justice oriented, more fruitful in music and children’s ministries. Or any parish she chooses to attend.
God’s peace to you OP, in this most holy season of love.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Sounds like what Matthew Kelly was speaking about here:

youtube.com/watch?v=3SsZUsZ6by4

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

The trouble with the Catholic Church is that, it is weak on fellowship and the Mass is not designed for one Christian to uplift another.

I think this statement is correct but not complete.

Mass does not lend itself to fellowship or conversation. And, unfortunately, the extent to which there is fellowship before or after Mass is often criticized by others who say people shouldn’t talk in church and similar statements.

The part that isn’t complete is that a parish can be so much more than simply going to Mass. We come together to support each other, teach each other, pray with each other, help others, etc. And it’s in those activities that we form a community with other parishioners.

Ultimately, though, the parish will only be what people make of it. If people are eager to fulfill their obligation and move on – get out the door as soon as the final blessing has been given – then it will be a pretty empty and unfulfilling place.

We don’t go to church to hear happy-clappy praise & worship (or Christmas childrens sing-a-long) music or listen to a heartwarming sermon from a personable pastor. Nor do we go to church to have social hour.

I think you should rephrase your question to say I don’t go to church to hear music or a sermon…

Because, frankly, a lot of people are looking for friendship and community and that is why they go to church. Or they’re looking for uplifting music or a stirring homily. They want to take something with them when they leave the building.

Catholics seem to fall for this fallacy that “we have the Eucharist and nothing else matters.” Lousy sermon? Doesn’t matter because we have the Eucharist. Insipid music? Doesn’t matter because we have the Eucharist. Lack of fellowship? Doesn’t matter because we have the Eucharist. And frankly, these other things do matter to a lot of people. And if they’re not coming to church, they don’t have a good sermon, they don’t have good music, they don’t have good fellowship, and they don’t have the Eucharist!

 

[MaryT777]

Sounds like what Matthew Kelly was speaking about here:

youtube.com/watch?v=3SsZUsZ6by4

Wonderful link; thanks for posting it!~
Mary.