Talk:Rule of Saint Benedict

message: To the best of my knowledge, the Benedictines ("Confoederatio Benedictina Ordinis Sancti Benedicti") are NOT an "order" in the sense as lay people understand this term (despite frequent assertions to the contrary), so that the use of the term "Order of St Benedict" in an encyclopedia without a mention at least of this important crucial distinction my well be misguiding the non-specialist reader. (Incidentally, Benedict of Nursia did not found an "order", again despite assertions to the contrary.) The Benedictine Houses are autonomous, as are the Congregations into which they have affiliated themselves (cf. []; also the rudimentary article Benedictine). When a week or so ago I had been hurridly tinkering with an earlier version of this article that betrayed a great deal of enthusiam but not the same amount of authoritative insight, and without wanting to be drawn into the details, I had therefore been treading rather carefully by circumventing the whole question of "order". If the version that I proposed at that time of this particular issue is not to be restored – and I admit that there is ample scope for improvement – (... under the authority of an abbot. For the past 1500 years its moderation has made it a leading Rule for both monks and nuns. Today it is normative for many religious communities worldwide ... Benedictine Confederation based in Rome.), I strongly recommend to express this point more pertinently than in the present version.
Portress 11:13, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No argument with any of this, except to point out that a discussion of the "Order" issue is more pertinent in the Order of Saint Benedict article.  No harm in mentioning it here, but keep the full explanation at OSB. JHCC 14:04, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

text: It seems to me that we should keep the intro as simple as possible, with fuller explanation below.  I'll change to "monks and nuns" to make that a little more explicit, but I don't think more than that is needed in the top paragraph.JHCC 14:04, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Are there any non-Anglican Protestant Benedictines?  If so, yes, include them, but I was under the impression that the only non-RC Benedictines were Anglican (or Episcopalian, as we say over here).  JHCC 14:04, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

text: This would be good to include in the "History" section.  I'll give it a stab, but please don't hesitate to edit it yourself.  JHCC 14:04, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Opening para.

message: :Christian monasticism originated in the East a few generations before Benedict, under the leadership of Saint Anthony the Great (251-356) in the deserts of Egypt.
Is this accurate? From what little I know he didnt actually organize (ie. lead), he was solitary ascetic who gave advice and influenced others wanted to be like him, but without living solitary under such extreme conditions. It was St. Marcarius who created the first proto-monestary cells and Pachomious who organized these cells into the first monestary. Stbalbach 23:54, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  St. Anthony 

message: Dear Stbalbach, endless editing (such as knocking the same material into shape in more than one place) is a waste of time. Maybe you are not accountable for yours, but I am for mine.
Now, why I am here right now: not yet having had a wink of sleep so far (0655 hrs) because of Wiki matters, I have just been startled by the warning that there is an editing conflict, that someone else worked on the same file since I have started editing it. Fair enough. But then I noticed that what I have done has simply vanished. I understand that work can subsequently be altered, in which case there is a complete record in "history". But in this case, I have no record at all of the corrections I had made. Maybe the programmers can do something about it, e.g. that one can at least print out the emendations before they disappear altogether, so that one can restore them later on from the hard copy. - Otherwise I cannot take the risk to contribute editing efforts.
Portress 06:08, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In this place Stbalbach had displayed – by way of demonstration only – the green "inusefor" box; but its side effect was that it caused a "Category" box at the foot of this Talk Page appearing that said that this article is undergoing major editing. This is useful in the case of an article, but not an appropriate category for a Talk Page; and the demo has therefore now been deleted. However, any other visitor to this Talk Page interested in using the "inusefor" tag can easily re-create it (and/or the demo) by following Stbalbach's supplementary information given below:
You can replace the "a few hours by" with what whatever. Make sure to use {{ not a single { when adding to the article so it shows up (I used a single { for illustrative purposes).
Stbalbach 15:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing advice to avoid "edit conflicts" and losing work 

message: I'm changing "The RB by SB purports to be a book of precepts..." to "The RB by SB is a book of precepts..."  It doesn't purport to be, it is.  If the question is the issue of SB's authorship, we should say "The RB, attributed to SB, is a book of precepts...", but the RB does not purport to be a book of precepts any more than Wikipedia purports to be an online encyclopedia.  I'm also going to try to untangle some of the syntax a bit lower down.  JHCC 14:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: 1) It is not fair on unsuspecting readers (e.g. first-time visitors who may not be familiar with the copyright info symbol) to entitle the picture "St Benedict...", for they might reckon with the possibility that this is a true likeness of him, perhaps a retouched copy of a contemporary mural, when in fact this is nothing but one of the many artist's impressions of him. Should the artist and date not also be stated below the picture to make this clear?
2) Nice to have a picture of St Benedict in Wiki. But why does it have to be used in more than one article? It may seem a bit overwhelming. Are there no other representations of him around that may be reproduced without copyright infringement?
Portress 22:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of St Benedict 

message: Have restored "living in community", furthermore changed a link to connect to Christian monasticism (as the previous editor Stbalbach obviously intended) in order to overcome the redundancy of the adjective "monastic" (in view of the presence already of the term "monks", "monastic" being derived from the same root Grk monos, conveying the notion of "single", apparently not in the sense of solitary living but as regards the aim of this way of living, namely its focus being solely on God) which was creating here a wrong emphasis (owing in no small measures also to the fact that, intended to provide a link, the adjective happened to be underlined) where used by same previous editor. These emendations are no nit-picking but reflect the RB concept of monks living in community, which is the only type of monks RB concerns itself with. Among the "four types of monks" listed in RB there are also the "anchorites"/"hermits", which are monks living in the desert (i.e. "monastic desert living"), the contrast in RB therefore being community-desert rather than, for example, monastic-political. In other words, in the context of this present paragraph it is not a matter of the adjective "monastic" qualifying "community living", although in another context, e.g. a non-RB context, that turn of phrase may be appropriate, i.e. in an article dealing with the types of living in community (e.g. "political community living"). 09:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "monks ... living in community" 

message: I added a section on the popular (and false) urban legend that the Rule of St Benedict instructs that "two stout monks" to be used to expel unruly or disruptive pilgrims.  --EngineerScotty 03:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added info on two stout monks 

message: Victor Hugo's famous work had a lot to say on the Rule of St. Benadict. Add some of it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.72.50.20 (talk) 16:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Les Miserables 

message: Is this really necessary?
After all, it seems that the author that added it also said that it was inaccurate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.155.175.216 (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Urban Legend 

message: Sorry I did not post an edit summary.  I'm new to this; I just noticed the vandalism and wanted to fix it.  I just chenged the article back to what it had been previously.
--RowellSK 04:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit

message: Is the Rule in the public domain? I could not see it in Wikisource? Is it? Clarification will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 15:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be in public domain. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikisource

message: Would it be worth mentioning the contributions of the Benedictine order to academia? Could also add link to "list of Benedictine colleges and universities" as well as explain the hallmarks of benedictine education.
Sodaheto (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benedictine involvement in education 

message: 09:56, 10 October 2018 and the revisions after 09:45, 10 October 2018 need review and edits by a caring Wikipedia user.
Keithchristian (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The version of 09:56, 10 October 2018 has misspellings and complete phrase changes 

message: Whoever wrote the introduction has advantages and disadvantages which are unreferenced and, as far as I can see, don't come up anywhere else in the article. I'm not saying they're wrong, but really needs referencing. Beyondheat (talk) 06:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreferenced introduction 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Laborare est orare and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 18#Laborare est orare until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Laborare est orare" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Service as worship and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at  until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Veverve (talk) 07:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Service as worship" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Service As Worship and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at  until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Veverve (talk) 08:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Service As Worship" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Regula Monachorum and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at  until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Veverve (talk) 08:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Regula Monachorum" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]