Blah! Blah! Blah! ... All the talking during Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter Apryl
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
We have people who talk before Mass, loudly. It is usually a convert. For some reason that is their practice in the old protestant church? In any case, you can shush them.
I do with a look. They know I love them…
When it was a problem, the Priest simply told people to pray before Mass and talking wasnt permitted. It lasted only a month. Back to talking…Go figure.

😦
 
Maybe what needs to happen is an indirect admonishment. My church bulletin has a question and answer column to which people ask questions about church and the anonymous writer answers. One time a question was about people being rude during church and talking. I noticed after that church is very quiet before and during Mass!
 
spunjalebi said:
I thought unless a person was sinning in terms of grave matter-- like the politicians who say they are Catholic but are also pro-choice-- could only have communion refused.
Click to expand...
Um… that’s like saying that your parents tell you that you can’t eat dessert until you put away the dishes to being starved. 😛

This was not a ‘refusal’ in terms of someone being forbidden to receive Communion because they are not behaving in ways that reflect the Church and the Churches respect for human life. 😉
 
Whenever I hear someone talking behind me, I give them about :30s to end the conversation, and then slowly pivot my head around, make eye contact, slowly narrow my eyes, grit my teeth, and then draw my index finger slowly across my throat.

Yeah, Mass is pretty quiet in my parish. :harp:
 
Apryl said:
Um… that’s like saying that your parents tell you that you can’t eat dessert until you put away the dishes to being starved. 😛

This was not a ‘refusal’ in terms of someone being forbidden to receive Communion because they are not behaving in ways that reflect the Church and the Churches respect for human life. 😉
Click to expand...
My point is, I don’t think a priest can refuse someone communion due to rude behavior. If that was true then all of us at some point should have been refused. I mean, I’ve seen people budging in line, not wait their turn, step in front of someone’s path, etc.
 
Ever heard of a prayer called the “Theotokion”. My wife used to call that a “Keep-a-talk-ion”. 😃
 
Several short ideas.
  1. You cannot refuse someone communion for rude behavior. But in the case of the person talking on the mobile phone, one can politely suggest that the person come back for communion when they are “not so busy”.
  2. As to the noise, I hold to my first post. Today we have no sense of what is polite and what is rude. Adults and children need to relearn the rules, not just for church.
  3. I think that the insistance that people be polite in church is only slightly helpful. We have to teach good manners at all times. I watch the way that people speak to each other in families and I’m stunned. I watch how people interrupt each other in conversation and it tells me that they have not been taught good manners, such as when to shut up.
  4. Even on these threads, we have some very rude posters.
My point is that often the people who are rude in church are rude in most situations. I guess that’s one of the reasons that I really prefer to work with the very poor. I have found that the very poor are much more polite and often much more willing to learn than the middle class and up. I can look at a very poor person and hold my finger to my lips and they immediately say, “Sorry.” I do the same thing to a middle class person and they just give me the evil eye.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
spunjalebi said:
My point is, I don’t think a priest can refuse someone communion due to rude behavior. If that was true then all of us at some point should have been refused. I mean, I’ve seen people budging in line, not wait their turn, step in front of someone’s path, etc.
Click to expand...
{{{HEAVY SIGH}}}

We’re talking about a priest giving communion WHILE a person was on a cell phone call…😊
 
spunjalebi said:
I think the chatter needs to happen in a more appropriate place. That’s the problem I see.
Click to expand...
I totally agree. Most Churches have a vestibule/gathering space & people who are entering for Mass can always do their visiting outside. Also, our parish & many other parishes have coffee & donuts after Mass. If one needs to chat that’s the place to do it.

I still remember the shock I felt the first time I attended a Protestant service. I was about 9 yrs. old & had gone to stay with my aunt who was a Methodist. My parents were supposed to pick me up on Sat., but my Dad got sick & couldn’t make the 60 mi. trip to come after me. My aunt either had to leave me with someone or take me along to her Church. She took me with her. This was pre-Novus Ordo Mass & I hadn’t ever attended any serice expect the TLM. I still remember how terrible I thought it was that, before the service began, people were actually turning around in the pew to “visit”.

Who’d have thought then that I would see the same thing in Catholic Churches 50 yrs. later. 😦
 
JReducation said:
Several short ideas.
  1. You cannot refuse someone communion for rude behavior. But in the case of the person talking on the mobile phone, one can politely suggest that the person come back for communion when they are “not so busy”.
  2. As to the noise, I hold to my first post. Today we have no sense of what is polite and what is rude. Adults and children need to relearn the rules, not just for church.
  3. I think that the insistance that people be polite in church is only slightly helpful. We have to teach good manners at all times. I watch the way that people speak to each other in families and I’m stunned. I watch how people interrupt each other in conversation and it tells me that they have not been taught good manners, such as when to shut up.
  4. Even on these threads, we have some very rude posters.
My point is that often the people who are rude in church are rude in most situations. I guess that’s one of the reasons that I really prefer to work with the very poor. I have found that the very poor are much more polite and often much more willing to learn than the middle class and up. I can look at a very poor person and hold my finger to my lips and they immediately say, “Sorry.” I do the same thing to a middle class person and they just give me the evil eye.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
I don’t know. I would argue that manners are a cultural thing. What would be considered good manners in one society isn’t considered good manners in another. What is rude to one culture may not be rude to another. So how do we judge what is good manners in the society we have now (American and Canadian culture respectively)?

Do we use the old standard or the new standard? I would say the majority wins… and if the majority believes interrupting one another isn’t rude then… it’s not rude. 🤷

It’s sad though, because I’m a huge fan of old mannerisms, it’s just that it seems as if ‘manners’ are changing. Rude and Polite is changing. I get yelled at ROUTINELY for calling men ‘sir’ (yes, yelled at - snapped at - belittled). But I was raised in a home where you call strangers ‘Sir’ and ‘Ma’am’, out of respect. But that’s not considered respectful anymore it’s considered demeaning (apparently).

We just have to change with the times… or continue quietly doing our own thing and ignoring the behaviors we don’t particularly like.
 
nickybr38 said:
It’s sad though, because I’m a huge fan of old mannerisms, it’s just that it seems as if ‘manners’ are changing. Rude and Polite is changing. I get yelled at ROUTINELY for calling men ‘sir’ (yes, yelled at - snapped at - belittled). But I was raised in a home where you call strangers ‘Sir’ and ‘Ma’am’, out of respect. But that’s not considered respectful anymore it’s considered demeaning (apparently).
Click to expand...
Ma’am and sir are also regional things. They’re still considered very much expected across most of the American South – it’s just good manners and respectful there. But in northern parts of the US, if you use those terms the person you’re addressing will assume you’re being disrespectful or flippant.
 
The 4 TLM masses I have attended at separate parishes have been the exact opposite of what you describe. There are no missals provided so if you are not fluent in latin, you can still follow along, there was rampant talking at both services, most of the talk had nothing to do with the Mass, but about weekend plans. There were some kids, who even had the audacity to make a spitball, and start using it in Church! OBVIOUSLY (just like you TLMer love to point fingers at the NO mass) this was CAUSE BY the TLM mass.

I will admit, the music was quite nice, but I felt secluded, and not part of a community of believers (Catholic means worldwide, not individual). The whole thing both times was a complete disaster, and I find it ironic, if not plain stupid, if TLM people assume that the NO mass is the cause of talking during Mass.

I’m sorry and do not mean to be disrespectful but your comments on the 4 TLMs you have attended…well I just don’t believe you. I do not believe you speak the truth.
 
Not being an anthropologist, I won’t attempt to speak like one and offer some educated analysis on the evolution of manners and its cultural overtones, while I do know that there are cultural rules of deportment. This I learned from my many assignments in different countries and having grown up the son of a US Diplomat. I’m from the south, but we lived in: Hong Kong, Italy, Columbia and Ecuador. As a missionary I lived in Papua New Guinea, India, Ecuador, Chile and the Caribbean. While a theology student I lived in London and Rome. Then there are the different parts of the USA. I can best speak from my personal experiences.

I found one common thread. The poor were always more polite and kind to our friars then the middle class and higher. Thus they were much more reverent and faithful to rules, when they understood them. I believe that it has to do with entitlement. In most societies, the middle class and higher have a sense of entitlement. They tend to be more educated. Unfortunately, their education is often warped. Their idea of freedom and conscience is intolerant of the sacred. Religious freedom and freedom of conscience is limited to what they support. They often believe that the very right and freedom of conscience can dispense with conscience, to ignore the Lawgiver, to be independent of unseen obligations. As a result, they look askance at anyone who tries to enforce the rights of the Lawgiver. This is a less common occurrence among the poor than it is among the middle and upper classes.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
Not being an anthropologist, I won’t attempt to speak like one and offer some educated analysis on the evolution of manners and its cultural overtones, while I do know that there are cultural rules of deportment. This I learned from my many assignments in different countries and having grown up the son of a US Diplomat. I’m from the south, but we lived in: Hong Kong, Italy, Columbia and Ecuador. As a missionary I lived in Papua New Guinea, India, Ecuador, Chile and the Caribbean. While a theology student I lived in London and Rome. Then there are the different parts of the USA. I can best speak from my personal experiences.

I found one common thread. The poor were always more polite and kind to our friars then the middle class and higher. Thus they were much more reverent and faithful to rules, when they understood them. I believe that it has to do with entitlement. In most societies, the middle class and higher have a sense of entitlement. They tend to be more educated. Unfortunately, their education is often warped. Their idea of freedom and conscience is intolerant of the sacred. Religious freedom and freedom of conscience is limited to what they support. They often believe that the very right and freedom of conscience can dispense with conscience, to ignore the Lawgiver, to be independent of unseen obligations. As a result, they look askance at anyone who tries to enforce the rights of the Lawgiver. This is a less common occurrence among the poor than it is among the middle and upper classes.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
That’s interesting. Entitlement is definitely an issue. We feel entitled to be able to speak whenever we want, entitled to be able to walk wherever we want, even entitled to as much respect as the Father receives. Problem is… we aren’t. 🙂 (I use we as in we as a society, of course).
 
The ill manners that we’re describing here are often a result of entitlement or ignorance. Though I’m not sure that the line between the two is that solid. These folks that offend us or interfere with our prayer, because of their chatter come from a world where people are programmed to believe that they are free.

The problem, as I see it from my limited perspective, is that freedom without boundaries is the portal to chaos. What we see, whether it’s at church, school or at the dinner table may be the chaos in which modern man finds himself. Since we cannot hang up our existence at the front door of the church, chaos goes inside with us.

I don’t want to say that talking in church is a sin. That would be adding to the chaos. When we begin to see sin everywhere, we’re not better off than those who deny sin. We’re just on the flipside of the same coin. The idea for the Christian is to be a different coin.

The bottom line here is that man needs to embrace the limits of his freedom, rather than fight against it. St. Benedict had a vision that is still relevant to this day. His monks make one vow, not three. They vow to obey. When they obey, all the other virtues and counsels come into play.

But obedience has become a dirty word in contemporary culture. Obedience is negatively interpreted as submissiveness, often forgetting that it was the refusal to submit that introduced Original Sin into the world.

The reason that a monk is silent in a church is not because there are rules that require that he be silent in the presence of God, far from it. If you say that to a monk, he’ll laugh. They don’t believe this anymore than they believe that the moon is made of cheese. The monk is silent in a church, because he is submissive to rules for the common good. An environment when men can pray is necessary for the common good. They submit to this rule.

When I presented this to a group of teens, it made sense to them. The idea that God requires silence in his presence did not make any sense to them, because it’s not true. He does not. God invites men into dialogue with him. This means that at times man must be still and know that he is God and at times, he must respond to God’s word in his soul. Benedict understood this. He understood that for this to happen for everyone, then everyone had to be conscious of the common good and obey the rules for the common good. The kids to whom I presented this understood it and wanted this, because it was good for the whole. What is good for the whole, is good for the individual.

We have to begin to think like St. Benedict and bring this message to others or we’ll be having this conversation in 100 years.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
I would place much of the blame for talking before and after Mass while people are praying on the Pastor. At my parish there is none of this going on. The Pastor needs to speak to the congregation and let them know that talking is not acceptable.

I have been in parishes where the priest actually is running around from pew to pew before Mass and talking to members. This sets a very poor example.

Even the children at my parish are quiet. Of course the babies and very small children might start up, but their parents remove them from church and return once they have calmed down.

I am a convert from an Anglo Catholic parish and there was no talking there either. To me it shows disrepect not only to others, but to our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette
 
I tried to be “patient” with all the chatting etc. before, during, and after Mass and it just seemed to get worse, year after year. It is my personal opinion that the pastor’s of these churches need to take a stand on correcting this…depending of course on how “modern” they are. Liberal pastors seem to tolerate this more than conservatives.
Thankfully, I found a church that offers the Latin Mass and this “problem” is completely non existant there…and it’s NOT just older people who attend that Mass.
It stuns me that people are more quiet in a movie theater before the film begins than they are in church before (and during) Mass.

I’ve been to Mass in churches where throughout the entire Mass, there are people milling about the sanctuary fussing with the musical instruments, sheet music, microphones, whispering to each other, etc. etc.all of which are even MORE distracting. It’s no wonder the behavior is what it is. People take their cue from what they see going on in the sanctuary. If the demeanor in the sanctuary is LAX, then the congregation will respond accordingly.

I don’t see why the music during the Mass has become such an important issue. The church I used to attend had so MUCH musical equipment in the sanctuary it was an eyesore…and completely detracted from the Tabernacle…meanwhile the huge choir loft was empty.
 
Are you sure that you’re identifying the sanctuary properly? I’ve been a religious for a very long time, served in four countries and six dioceses and have never seen the music on the sanctuary proper. I’ve seen it on the side of the sanctuary, up front. It’s not always the most strategic place, because it’s often too close to the sanctuary. I remember visiting one church where they had some sort of pen-like area that was adjacent to the sanctuary. I thought it was was spatial planning. However, I’ve never seen it on the sanctuary itself. The music is not supposed to be there. The only people on the sanctuary are to be the ministers. Even the person leading the singing should be on the main floor to the side.

As to the importance of the music, that’s a whole other question. Music in liturgy is an ancient tradition that predates Christianity. It’s found in all religious traditions. Music has always been used as a form of prayer. I can’t recall which saint said it, but one of them said, “He who sings, prays twice.”

In some parishes that are administered by religious, you may have a different setup, because the parish has to accommodate to the traditions and customs of the religious community that runs it. Bishops know this. It’s part of their contract when they invite religious to administer parishes for them. These customs are different from one religious community to another. For example, I believe it’s the Divine Word Missionaries who sit around the altar. I could be wrong about the name of the community, so don’t take it to the bank. But the particular congregation has had this as part of their tradition since they were founded in the 1800s. The German Capuchins stand around the altar. This dates back to the 1500s. In both cases, there is only one priest. The others are the religious of the community. If you’re at one of their masses, you may be invited to join them. It does not happen too often in a parish, because the religious do not attend mass with the laity. They have a conventual mass. In those cases you may see the religious, who are also the musicians on the sanctuary with their instruments. But they belong there, because it’s their custom. Most religious communities don’t have specific liturgical customs and they are to follow the GIRM, if they don’t have a missal and instructions of their own put out by their community.

For example, in Poor Clare houses, the music ministry is at the front, between the nuns and the sanctuary, just inside the grill. The leader stands at the center, facing the nuns and the organ or whatever other instrument they may be using is on the side so as not to obstruct the view of the nuns. But they are not on the santuary floor. The line of demarcation is the grill. In places where there is no grill, the line of demarcation is a step. The sanctuary is on a platform at least one step above the main floor.

In your typical parish run by secular priests (Diocesan, FSSP, Maryknoll, Vincentian and other), this is not the norm. The norm is that the music ministry is off to the side or in some other place where they can see the priest.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
I always “assumed” that the “sanctuary” meant the area where the main altar is located and the area surrounding it. The church I was referring to also has two side altars: One to the left and one to the right of the main altar. (The BVM’s and St. Joseph’s respectively.) These side altars are separated by an arch and in no way detract from the main altar area and are much smaller as is typical. The church is run by diocesan priests, not an order.

The main altar IS on a “one-step up” raised platform. Then, behind IT are three steps which lead to the “old altar” which holds the tabernacle and the large crucifix hangs above it.

The musical equipment is about three feet away from the main altar platform on the right…next to the arch of the side altar, but not IN the side altar area itself…that’s why I said it’s in the “sanctuary” proper.

At any given time, in this music area there is a regular piano, some sort of an electric keyboard, a lectern, numerous chairs, music stands, microphones, speakers, AND a small portable Baptimal font. Not to mention an array of hideous cords all over the floor.
All of this crammed into a small space…and when all the actual musicians are there it’s just TOO MUCH. It overpowers everything.

I have nothing against music at Mass and realize it’s importance in the liturgy, but why should all this equipment be allowed to distract from the main altar when there is a huge choir loft in the rear which could easily accomodate all of this stuff and allow the congregation to focus on the celebrant and the Mass itself, instead of all the distraction and activities of the musicians ???

When you go to a theater to see a live “musical”, the orchestra isn’t on stage with the cast. They’re down in an orchestra pit so as not to detract from the performers. (I’m not comparing the Mass to a play, just citing an example, but the same principile applies.)

People complained about it, but nothing was done and the situation remains the same.
If this isn’t liturgical abuse, I don’t know what is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top