Talk:Benedictines

message: :His homosexual step-brother, Eugene Leipounski, joined Benedict's order.
This sentence about a step-brother has been in this article, apparently unchallenged, for some time.  A view through the history reveals that several different names, none of which seem right for Italy in the sixth century, have been used in it; I doubt them all.  Most recently, the article has been edited by an anon who calls the step-brother a homosexual; it seems unlikely that there's much data on the sexual habits of a sixth century monk.  I have removed the sentence entirely for the time being.  -- Smerdis of Tlön 19:15, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: And if I see Eugene Leipounski back in this, those IPs will get reported as vandals.  -- Smerdis of Tlön 17:08, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Somebody's stepbrother 

message: A recent editor writes:
:proper and formal grammatic form... no parentheses in sentences
Where do you get that idea? Parens are fine in formal writing (although nested parens (like these) probably aren't acceptable in most writing). See
Atlant 22:38, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just like in programming, they are acceptable, writing/language are living things..they are intuitively understood and train the reader to separate sub-thoughts. 2A02:8070:D2A7:9D00:C1AF:203E:41E7:6879 (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parens ain't formal? 

message: As a Student of Belmont Abbey College, I'm surprised it's not listed as an Abbey.  It was founded by the Benedictine monks, and today the campus cohabit ates with the Monastery, and some monks teach courses.
:Done. Feel free to modify articles yourself! I don't "own" this site and am, in fact, a very infrequent visitor to it.Student7 21:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Belmont Abbey

message: Sorry, unacceptable. Suggest "way of [religious] living". This offers itself, because "way (Latin via) [of living]" is a/the crucial concept in the Rule of St Benedict, e.g. Prol. 20: "See how the Lord in his love shows us the way of life"; Prol. 24: "he shows us the way to his tabernacle/tent"; Prol. 48: "do not run away from the way that leads to salvation"; Prol. 49: "we shall run the way of God's commandments"; ... ch. 71.2: "we know that it is by this way of obedience that we go to God". The use of the term in the Rule of St Benedict has an impeccable pedigree: cf. Greek hodos = "way" in Acts 9:2.
Portress 01:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benedictine MOVEMENT? 

message: We need to clarify (and correct on relevant pages) the whole "Confoederatio Benedictina Ordinis Sancti Benedicti" / "Ordo Sancti Benedicti" business.  If I am not mistaken, Ordo Sancti Benedicti is the Latin name for the ORDER as such, while Confoederatio Benedictina Ordinis Sancti Benedicti is the Latin name for the CONFEDERATION.  The two are not the same thing: the latter is the governing body of the former.  In other words, the OSB article should have Ordo Sancti Benedicti and the Benedictine Confederation should have Confoederatio Benedictina Ordinis Sancti Benedicti.  I've changed the OSB page, but I'd be interested if anyone has a good reason not to (in which case we can change it back).  JHCC 17:27, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear JHCC: Since accidentally stumbling across the Wiki threshold, this present subject in particular, I have a mental note to try to trace a verbatim copy of the relevant original texts in order to be able to tighten up any loose language in this respect. At the moment, for all I know there has been no foundation of an order as a legal entity. Rather the order seems to be an abstract, a kind of a concept to be able to understand and treat Benedictines in the same organizational way as religious orders, especially in Church Law, a concept that has received a serviceable legal shape through the formation of the Congregations that eventually came to be represented in the Confederation of today. But the Confederation is not a Generalate; and the Abbot Primate is not a Superior General. - Let's wait and see what the next expert passing by has to offer.  Portress 03:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you clarify that distinction over in religious order and link to it in these articles?  There is some good material on the public domain Catholic Encyclopedia here  that we can raid.  JHCC 13:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Latin name

message: "... when Gregory the Great embraced the monastic life and converted his family palace on Apostle ..." What is "palace on Apostle" supposed to mean? Is "on Apostle" a location? Or a mishap during translation from a source in another language? Some clarification seems to be called for. Thanks!  Portress 03:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  St Gregory's palace "on Apostle"? 

message: The image :File:Order of St. Benedict Crest.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:Order of St. Benedict Crest.jpg

message: I noticed that in the section headed ″France″ there is no date.  It does say the next millenium, but that would be clearer if there were a date earlier in the paragraph.  I don't know the subject matter enough to add a date.  Perhaps there is someone who does.CorinneSD (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  France 

message: In the fifth paragraph in the section headed ″Benedictine vow and life″, first sentence, it is not completely clear to what the phrase at the end of the sentence:    commonly referred to as ″Religious″     refers -- it could refer to the people who take the vow or it could refer to the Consecrated Life.  If it refers to the Consecrated Life, it would be clearer if the words "which is" are added before    commonly referred to as ″Religious".     If it refers to its professed members, it would be clearer if the words    "and are"   appear before the phrase.  Since I don't know anything about the Benedictines, except what I read in the article, I do not want to make the change.  I just felt there was some ambiguity here.CorinneSD (talk) 23:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benedictine vow and life 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Order of Saint Benedict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140419011623/http://www.advent.org/ to http://www.advent.org
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The paragraphs on the early historical development of the Order rely on the Catholic Encyclopaedia entry, which is very badly dated and relied on tendentious traditions. The Benedictine claim that Roman monasticism belonged to them from the 6th century was the result of a malicious reworking of history after the Great Schism of 1054, whereas monasticism in Rome was actually dominated by Eastern-rite monks from the early 7th century until the end of the 8th. The identification of St Augustine of Canterbury as a Benedictine is especially tendentious. There are serious problems with the traditional assumption that it was he, and his fellow missionaries travelling to England at the end of the 6th century, who single-handedly propagated the Rule of Benedict in what is now the territory of France. This is because the actual historical witness is that the Rule first appeared in what was then northern Gaul and spread from there, not from Italy and certainly not from Rome. I write as a Benedictine monk myself. Basilwatkinsosb (talk) 08:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The early historical outline as given is obsolete. 

message: Just browsing around about Walter of Pontoise and noticed his WP page says he founded a monastery for women " in 1094, at Berteaucourt-les-Dames near Amiens, a monastery for women, with the assistance of Godelinda and Elvige". WP also has an article on this Berteaucourt-les-Dames which refers to "Benedictine Abbey of St. Mary (Abbaye Sainte-Marie de Berteaucourt)." Maybe I'm missing it due to spelling or whatever but it isn't on the lists in this article, and nor is Saint Walter of Pontoise who appears to have set it up. Is someone editing this page that can make sense of this? Does the monastery need adding to the appropriate list along with the appropriate founder?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgru001 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Berteaucourt-les-Dames 

message: As has been noted before, this article seems to go through phases of orderliness to mass confusion with dead links. If anyone has the time and desire, then assistance would be appreciated for a general review and cleaning. MonasticScribe (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Review and Cleaning of the article 

message: I've attached the "Disputed" template to the section on Benedictine history, and to the list of Notable Benedictines. The former uses an antiquated source (1907), and both ignore 20th century scholarly work which questions the historical accuracy of the Benedictine foundation mythology. I notice that the problem has already been raised on this Talk page, with no reply given. I would like to remind previous editors that Wikipedia insists on a NPOV policy, and does not exist in order to assert your religious order's traditional story of its origins -in contradiction to well-known contemporary historical scholarship. This is dishonest, and amounts to a POV. For example, the monastic historian David Knowles decades ago bluntly dismissed the story that St Augustine of Canterbury was a Benedictine, so why is this bald assertion being made here? In the Notable Benedictines section, why (e.g.) are Augustine of Canterbury, Pope Gregory I, Alcuin, Jonas of Bobbio (Columbanian) or Bernard of Clairvaux (Cistercian) being listed as Benedictines, especially when their own Wikipedia articles make no such claim? This section reads as if it is sourced from some 19th century Benedictine monk wishing to demonstrate how great the Benedictines are.  As time and health permits I intend to edit these sections to include up-to-date citations and to remove tendentious material, but make this comment now to elucidate the template warnings and to invite any possible explanations for the present state of these sections. I have also inserted inline template warnings. Harryjohnsidney (talk) 07:24, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The historical sections of this article display a POV and are factually inaccurate 

message: wouldn't it be better to say " priestly" or simply omit the word "male"?  Although factual, seems a little editorial to me.  A Catholic monastery by definition is male.  Highlighting that fact when the same fact is never highlighted in descriptions of other male groups seems agenda driven rather than informative. 144.86.182.30 (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chicago Bears are a MALE football team? 

message: Benedict's sister, Scholastica, possibly his twin, also became a "RELIGIOUS" from an early age, but chose to live as a hermit. They retained a close relationship until her death.
Religious is surely an adjective? JimRobinBSc (talk) 22:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes 'religious' is both an adjective and a noun.  Epistulae ad Familiares (talk) 07:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this make grammatical sense?