Untitled[edit]

What does "the longest lasting of the western monastic orders" mean? Perhaps eldest surviving western monasatic order? Certainly there are other still functioning western monastic orders - is the benedictine the oldest? -rmhermen

Somebody's stepbrother[edit]

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)

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)

Parens ain't formal?[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]


The overall state of the article[edit]

This article is in a real poor state – parentheses or not. Anyone with the inside knowledge and time please to help, also to sort out overlaps with similar articles? Have provided a couple of links for starters to indicate some important points requiring revision/expansion.

Portress 08:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, this is Wikipedia, so you know what to do: be bold!
Atlant 11:33, 13 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Belmont Abbey[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Better-informed experts?[edit]

JHCC, the sad state of affairs on Wikipedia is that there isn't uniform coverage on all the fields of human study. Computers, Star Wars, and Star Trek we've got lots of. Hard science? We've got plenty of that too. Articles of interest to Libertarians? Check.

But when it comes to the softer topics (like sociology and the like), unless there's an advocacy group behind it, the coverage is slim-to-naught. Look at how the High Middle Ages article is languishing, forlorn and unloved.

So if you have anything you want to add, by all means, have at it! We need you!

Atlant 15:14, 13 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When I first stumbled across Wiki, I thought here is someone whose brains I can pick. Now Wiki wants to pick mine... My desk is groaning under the load of matters that have been urgent for the past few months; but I'll surely try to contribute thoughts to help the odd neglected subject along as best I can.
Portress 02:37, 15 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! And we could watch the portal for you for a little while if it would help. ;-)

Atlant 16:51, 15 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When did it begin to spread[edit]

This phrase "It is not until the Middle Ages, around the time of the "Black Monks", that we first hear mention of an Order of Saint Benedict." is very imprecise. Middle Ages can refer to anytime between about 500 and perhaps as late as 1500.

i dont know the answer, but a more accurate date is definitely needed

It should also be clarified whether we are talking here about (A) the spread of Benedictine practice or (B) the organization of a (so-called) Benedictine order. JHCC 13:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please sign your comments! JHCC 13:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1) Have made a mental note to provide asap more detail re: first use of "Order".
2) Dear JHCC: "Order" ("organization") - v - "ordering" (i.e. "way of living"). Should therefore not everything concerning "ordering" be dealt with exclusively under the heading "Rule of SB"? If necessary create additional sub-headings there?!
Portress 00:28, 31 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Benedictine MOVEMENT?[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Latin name[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)
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)

St Gregory's palace "on Apostle"?[edit]

"... 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)

Image copyright problem with File:Order of St. Benedict Crest.jpg[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

France[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Benedictine vow and life[edit]

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)CorinneSD (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)CorinneSD (talk) 23:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Order of Saint Benedict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore)) after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot)) to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The early historical outline as given is obsolete.[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Requested move 11 October 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move. No consensus local or in community for the only objection. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 21:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Order of Saint Benedict → Benedictines – Rename per WP:TITLE. 'Benedictines' is a far more WP:COMMONNAME than the formal name 'Order of Saint Benedict' (958k results vs 147k results on Google). It is also more WP:CONCISE, and of equal WP:PRECISION. It is furthermore WP:CONSISTENT with other articles on similar religious orders such as Augustinians, Cistercians, Trappists, Carmelites, and Carthusians. —Madrenergictalk 05:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Fayenatic london (talk): The categories are another area that would require cleanup, and I thank you for drawing them to my attention. Taking reference from similar articles, Category:Order of Saint Benedict would be merged into Category:Benedictines, which will largely function as a supercategory while the majority of their articles will WP:DIFFUSE to their respective subcategories, like Category:Benedictine monasteries‎ and Category:Benedictine schools for the buildings, and one of the very numerous subcategories for biographies. It would still retain a few isolated articles (like events) for which no proper subcategory exists like Sexual abuse scandal in the English Benedictine Congregation or English Benedictine Reform. —Madrenergictalk 13:33, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Madrenergic: looking in Category:Orders following the Benedictine Rule, it seems the general pattern to keep a category "Fooian Order", and a sub-category for "Fooians" just for biographies. Thus the page Cistercians is in Category:Cistercian Order rather than Category:Cistercians. This is different from the usual pattern but it does make sense to me. Therefore I now support the nomination, but I would oppose merging the categories in the way that you have suggested. – Fayenatic London 14:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fayenatic london: Thank you for your comment! That makes sense. I will consider that. —Madrenergictalk 14:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough, though I believe the argument for consistency still holds when compared with the Cistercians, Trappists, Carmelites, and Carthusians. —Madrenergictalk 06:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
“Order of ...” better matches the scope, which includes the organisation and properties. “Benedictines” is an adjective, frequently used sure, but as a shortened form for “Benedictine monks”, as a reference to the people. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: Thank you for your response! I may have to correct you there, though. "Benedictines" (with the 's') is always a noun, not an adjective. The adjective is actually "Benedictine" (without the 's'), which is appended to topics relating to the order or the monks, but that is not what I am proposing. Furthermore, there is also a difference between "Benedictines" (without a definite article), which refers to a plural of Benedictine monks, and "the Benedictines" (with the definite article "the"), which refers to the collective institution of monks (and not just a plural of monks) and is the title I am proposing to use. See here and here for evidence of the term "the Benedictines" being used to refer to the entire order rather than just several monks. Hence – having established that both "the Benedictines" and "the Order of Saint Benedict" are mutually synonymous nouns referring to the same collective institution – "the Benedictines" is preferred per WP:TITLE policy for being WP:CONSISTENT, WP:CONCISE, WP:PRECISE, and the more WP:COMMONNAME; whereas "the Order of Saint Benedict" is just a WP:OFFICIALNAME but does not otherwise fulfil WP:TITLE criteria or overrule WP:TITLE under WP:OFFICIALNAME criteria. —Madrenergictalk 17:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It’s too informal, an informal contraction of “Benedictine Order”. I can see reason to prefer Benedictine Order over the current official name, putting the key word first. Similarly with Carmelites, quite sloppy an informal term, should be titled Carmelite Order, they having a much more unsuitably lengthy official name.
Several orders have similarly overly shortened names, consistent but bad, ok. Benedictine Order is sufficiently concise. Precise is not met by the proposed, because as I said, Benedictines frequently refers to just the people. COMMONNAME is sufficiently met by Benedictine Order, better than the current, so I agree with the motivation to shorten the current, but don’t agree with overshortening. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting to see that Benedictine Order appears to be the title of the first version of the page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: Thank you for your honest reply. Your reply appears to be a combination of few points, which I shall address individually:
  1. Formality versus informality: Perceived informality should not be a factor in this, as WP:TITLE does not mandate a formal title.
  2. "Benedictines" is less precise than "Benedictine Order": I disagree. Per WP:PRECISION, "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that". If we reread the article, we will note that the scope of this article describes the collective body of monks, their inception, development, beliefs, monastic life, and history. The adoption of an identity as a religious order with the title "Order of Saint Benedict" is just part of this history and a subset of the whole article, so specifying "Order" is overly precise.
  3. There is a need to disambiguate between "Benedictines" (as in a plural of monks) from "Benedictines" (as in the institution) by specifying "Benedictine Order": Per WP:ATDAB, one only needs to disambiguate through a more specific tile if the title has been used for another article, which is not the case here - there are no separate articles describing Benedictines as a plural of monks distinct from Benedictines as an institution; both are encompassed in this article, and both "Benedictines" and "Benedictine Order" redirect to this same article. There is also no need to split the two concepts into different articles either, and I presume that there is no proposal to do so, either.
—Madrenergictalk 07:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Madrenergic, you do nicely articulate my essential points. Your explanations of disagreements do not persuade me to change my mind. I do believe that Wikipedia should tend to formal language, just as do quality sources. Did I argue a PRECISE line? I’ve been on about that criterion for some time, but I don’t think it is so important here. Distinguish between Benedictine monks and the Benedictine Order, I don’t think “need”, but do think it is better to do so. In any case, I hope that you appreciate that I agree that either option is better than the current.
Your statement “The adoption of an identity as a religious order with the title "Order of Saint Benedict" is just part of this history” surprised me. It is not my reading or understanding, it is suggesting that people, monks mostly, identified as Benedictines first, prior to a concept of their being an order. Is that wha you mean to say? I am curious.
Looking at sources, reference #1 titles and uses “Benedictine Order”. Reference #2 begins with “Benedictines” but uses the term to refer to people as a subset of the institution and tradition, and goes on to use “Benedictine Order” as the more general term. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: "It is suggesting that people, monks mostly, identified as Benedictines first, prior to a concept of their being an order. Is that wha you mean to say? I am curious." Just to quickly answer this question without restarting our debate — yes, that is an accurate description. For most of history they identified with their founder but never organised into an order proper until the papal order of 1893. In any case, I accept that our views do differ somewhat, and I am heartened that we find common ground in seeking a change from the status quo. On my part, I very much enjoyed this candid yet polite discussion with you. —Madrenergictalk 18:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Berteaucourt-les-Dames[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

General Review and Cleaning of the article[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

The historical sections of this article display a POV and are factually inaccurate[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Chicago Bears are a MALE football team?[edit]

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) No, not all male Benedictines are 'priested'. Some remain as brothers. --Po Mieczu (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories