Talk:Dominican Order

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Catholicism Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale.

I strongly suspect that this material is taken from the 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia (since its history of bishops ends at 1910). If so, there should be credit given. 63.230.177.22 14:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The God's dogs pun should get mention. 142.177.124.178 03:29, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Can someone do a write-up on the Breviary and Martyrology? -FZ 16:40, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think that they should be linked but not merged Elnutter 08:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the monastery of Eco's "The name of the Rose" was benedictine, not dominican.

You are absolutely right. It is even mentioned in that book's entry. I removed the 'Dominican" mention. Anchorite 16:26, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

In matter of facts Bernardo Gui, The Inquisitor is the only member of the Order of preachers in that book.Jfreyre

Dominicans didn't have monasteries, did they? They're a mendicant order. john k 17:37, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They do have monasteries. There is one in Washington, D.C. called the Dominican House of Studies; it is a monastery and a college. FeanorStar7
I believe they call there residences Priories, Convents or Houses depending on the size. -Miked84 04:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Quite right. Convents or Priories (the terms apply to the same residences) have at least six solemnly-professed friars, while Houses are smaller than that. The essential difference is that a Priory (or Convent) can elect it's own prior (superior) whereas the superior of a House is appointed by the Provincial. Peter Hunter OP

This page is hugely deficient in a number of respects:

  • It needs some account of the nuns, laity and sisters.
  • It needs to be brought up to date in its history.
  • The list at the bottom of Dominicans needs to be entirely replaced by the Category:Dominicans link but only once that has been sorted out satisfactorily.

Peter Hunter OP

Contents

[edit] There should be...

There should be a reference to the "Statute of Jewry" in England during the 13th century and the king's order for forced and open conversion of Jews to Christianity.Jay Kay 15:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Given the Dominican's motto of 'Veritas', I'm astonished that there is no mention of the Dominican's role in the Inquisition, and their murder of thousands.


Yes I agree as well. Dominic De Guzman was a founding father of the dominican order which was responsbile for numerous murders on par with genocide. one of the main reasons the order was founded was to exterminate religious competition with a group of gnostic christians called "Cathars". Atleast one reference I know is the "Jesus Papers".

THERE SHOULD BE ATLEAST TWO PARAGRAPHS TOUCHING ON THE INHUMANITY OF THE DOMINICAN ORDER.

They have had a role in the inquisition, but to say that one of the "main reasons the order was founded was to exterminate religious competition" and which was a an order "on par with genocide" reveals not only a somewhat frightening amount of unjust prejudice from someone claiming for justice but also a clear lack of knowledge... Maybe you should:

  • 1. go to the wikipedian page on the founder St. Dominic
  • 2. learn that the inquisition started several decenies after the death of the founder of the order and hence could not create an order founded for the inquisition
  • 3. learn that the order had been created to preach, not to exterminate (one of the main reasons for its creation)
  • 4. read about the black legend
  • 5. sign your edits
  • I'm not saying they didn't have anything to do with the inquisition, but you're going much much much too far claiming false things...

Haw81 00:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Dominicans in Colonial History

  • There should be a section on the Dominican's role in colonial and modern history of Latin America. This should not just include the conquest, but also their role in the colonial reducciones and corregimiento system. Wikipedia already has a number of articles covering this theme with regard to the Jezuits, but it would be useful to have this extended to the Dominicans. Considering that Latin America currently has the largest Roman Catholic population in the world, and that the Dominicans have played an important role in its conquest and conversion, it is not enough to dedicate two or three lines to this subject, and simply state that the Dominicans could compensate for their losses in Europe with the revenues from the colonies. This does not seem in balance with the order's role in world history, and might have the appearance of being a Euro-centric perspective. Arjuno 20:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jacobins

I added a note about the Jacobins, but it probably needs a reference or two. WHY are the Dominicans called Jacobins in Paris?--Filll 21:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely with the comment concerning the addition of material relating to the dominican led genocide of the Cathars. The part of the article that discusses Dominic's uninvolvement with the actual killing is complete rubbish.

[edit] Dominicans vs. Franciscans

I'm curious about seeing more material on how the Dominican and Franciscan orders related to each other in complementary ways, and how and why they later came into conflict.

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:OP sello2.gif

Image:OP sello2.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from Dominican friar

It's not clear to me that Dominican friar can stand as a separate article beyond a dictionary entry or duplicating the information that already is (or should be) here. NickelShoe (Talk) 21:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Support merge of course. I'd be bold & just do it. Johnbod 17:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:OP sello2.gif

Image:OP sello2.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Section on Elements of Dominican spirituality

The section on Elements of Dominican spirituality in this article is interesting, but it is long and has no subsections. It is hard to read because is really too long. In fact, my first thought was that it seems "like a freeway that keeps going forever" on the computer screen. I did not write this section so I do not want to break-it up myself. But whoever watches this page and wrote that section, will you please break it up into meaningful sub-sections so it will not feel like the Long Island Expressway? In fact, adding a short introduction that mentions the key elements will be very helpful. This can then be followed by subsections. Your effort will be appreciated. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 07:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This section is incredibly long, has several apparent disjunctions of thought, and appears to have been made by an account with no other edits - the likelihood that its author will reemerge to edit this section is unlikely. I agree it needs serious cleanup - anyone capable of merging it more thoroughly with the rest of the article should probably do so. My knowledge on the subject is insufficient to tackle it appropriately. 24.152.192.253 (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Child Sexual Abuse

There should be a section documenting dominican involvement in the larger catholic child sexual abuse problem. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17728112 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.153.192.15 (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Three sections to remove

I would suggest that three sections be removed from this article: (1) the paragraphs addressing recent developments in the Phillipines province; (2) the two sections that just provide a reference to places where Aquinas' views are discussed.

As to (1): its presence is jarring, to say the least. Here we are discussing the history over 800 years of an entity with a worldwide presence, and it is capped with a minor controversy in a sub-part?

As to (2): people looking for Aquinas' views will find them. It is unlikely that someone looking for Aquinas' views would come first to an article on the Dominican order. And if they did, they would quickly find the materials elsewhere.

I want to give people an opportunity to respond before removing, though. So if you want to defend their presence, please do so soon. theloavesandthevicious (talk) 23:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If it helps at all, I don't want to be solely DEstructive. I plan on editing to make improvements, and perhaps adding in the process. But the more I read, the more things seem to be extraneous. As another e.g., much of what is in the part on spirituality would be appropriate in the article on St. Dominic -- but that doesn't mean that it ALL needs to be included here. theloavesandthevicious (talk) 00:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The person who added the part re. Phillipines responded on his talk page, and did not object. I am going to remove it now. theloavesandthevicious (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hearing no objection, the parts just providing duplicative or otherwise unnecessary links re. St. Thomas are now out. theloavesandthevicious (talk) 02:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

While attempting to be respectful of the previous version, I have done three main things in the introduction. First, take out "fratrum." The entire Dominican Order is the Ordo Praedicatorum. The fratrum are the friars, one branch of the family.

Related to that, second, I put up front the various branches of the Dominican order. While there are controversies over the precise legal status of the various branches, I think the version I gave is neutral.

Third, make the intro shorter. I have deleted duplication and pushed down into the body some thigns that belong there. theloavesandthevicious (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Foundation

I have re-organized this section. It seems to me that the discussion begins with the historical encounter with Albigensians. It is only after that historical encounter that one addresses the form the new foundation would take (i.e., not monastic, urban, etc.). And while I am sure some would complain if discussions of subsequent Dominican battles against heresy were removed, I have moved it to the end of the section. (The section is, after all, about the FOUNDATION.) The only reason it seems justifiable to keep it in at all is by assering that the later activities of the Order were inspired by those of its founder.

theloavesandthevicious (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dominican spirituality

I propose a radical chopping of the section on Elements of Dominican Spirituality. As I read the edit history, it had been a separate article and was pasted into this article in Novmeber 2007 by a user who does not have a user or talk page. As others have noted, it is long and rambling. Someone obviously put a lot of work into it, but I can't tell who, and much of the work is useless anyway (e.g., many of the citations are simply to the last name of an author and there is no indication of the title of the work being cited).

Anyone want to try to dissuade me from chopping? theloavesandthevicious (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merger

I am proposing that Dominican nuns be merged here, as there is very little content in that article. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Now that I look a little closer, it is already here word for word, so I'm just gonna redirect. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nuns are not sisters; sisters are not nuns

I'm putting this here because twice in the past week people have attempted to combine the section on nuns with the section on sisters, on the false premise that they are the same thing. That is entirely incorrect. Nuns and sisters are of different status under canon law, and in the Dominican family the nuns are the "second order" and the sisters are a particular form of "third order" life in community.

This is something that is so fundamental and commonly expected that the Dominican homepage does not discuss the difference. But as circumstantial evidence, see, e.g., the links in the right-hand bar at Dominican homepage (separate section for nuns and sisters).

The nuns were founded by St. Dominic at Prouille in the 13th century -- the sisters are a more modern form of Dominican life.

See generally [1] & [2].

theloavesandthevicious (talk) 17:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Could you make it clear in the article text, so that this won't happen again? Thanks. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
That works for me. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other Prominent Dominicans

I have gone through and made sure all of the people in the list were tagged with the Dominicans category. Therefore there is no reason to keep this list, and I delete it. If you restore it, please chime in here with a reason to keep it. theloavesandthevicious (talk) 00:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)