Talk:Bernard of Clairvaux
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Bernard of Clairvaux is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France and Monaco on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks. | |
 |
||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses. | |
 |
Bernard of Clairvaux is part of the WikiProject Saints, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Saints on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to saints as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to saints. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. |
If one can not praise the Saints then there's little hope for the rest of us. Contesting the neutrality of an article praising the Saints is absurd. If you conceed that a Saint is a Saint, then it is a fact that their works are from God, and therefore good. If you try to contend that the saints were evil or that their works were mixed with good and bad and not from God, then the onus should be on those who oppose the Saints to present their case. I'm removing the neutrality warning - anyone who disagrees is welcome to place the counter argument within the article, and the verdict will me likely made on the Day of General Judgement. - Sean White
- Very lovely, but perhaps human actions that proceed "from God, and therefore good" is a syllogism less than encyclopia-worthy! To effuse "The world had no meaning for him save as a place of banishment and trial" about a powerful abbot at the center of European politics is inane. I did't apply the vulgar little tag myself, but it was well deserved in this case. --Wetman 01:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] An apology
This is an apology of the crusades ? Ericd 15:10, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Much of this section has been disproven by modern scholarship. Citeaux was NOT on the verge of extinction. Bernard did not join until 1113 the SAME year the first daughter house, La Ferté, was founded. If a monastery creates a daughter house they have to have a surplus of monks to fill it. Also, planning the creation of a daughterhouse takes several years. La Ferté was founded in 1113, so it was in the planning stages at least as early as 1109. The dating, and importance of Bernard in the early years of Citeax, as well as the 'miracles' can be traced back to his original biographers, whose aims were to prove Bernard's worth as a potential candidate for sainthood.
see:
http://www.wku.edu/~rob.harbison/projects/bernmyth.pdf
http://www.faculty.de.gcsu.edu/~dvess/ids/medieval/cist.html
http://www.thecyberfarm.com/cistercians/cistercianintro.htm
- Comments from "Abbot of the Cistercian abbey of Clairvaux" section by 161.6.41.76. — Laura Scudder | Talk 17:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comments from "Bernard and the Cistercian Order" section by --Owenaprhys 02:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
The article says that Bernard's influence was great because there were 93 abbeys associated with Clairvaux in 1142. At that time there were more than 300 abbeys associated with the Cistercians as a whole. Bernard's influence, while impressive, was not as great as the article makes it out to be. Perils of cutting and pasting from the internet.
[edit] Date Change
I am changing the date from Easter 1145 to Easter 1146 for when Bernard preached the Crusades and Louis and Eleanor took up the cross.
See Here: http://www.randomhouse.co.uk/alisonweir/eleanor/newsextracts.html
[edit] Article addition suggestion
This article would benefit from more information about Bernard's letter "In Praise of the New Knighthood", which helped support the Order of the Knights Templar. His relationship with them (as a nephew of one of the original nine knights) should also be clarified. I'd do it myself, but am deep into editing some other articles at the moment, and noticed the omission. --Elonka 18:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Patronage
I have included Gibraltar in the patronage section as Bernard of Clairvaux is also the Patron saint of Gibraltar. --Chris Buttigieg 20:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Miracles
This article is about a saint, and no saint is complete without miracles. Some of the paintings shown in the article illustrate miracles, but the text omits any mention of them. What are the key miracles attributed to St. Bernard? Freederick 21:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- The miracle Lactatio Bernardi, where the Virgin Mary gave him her breastmilk - but my english isn't good enough to write about. --Cuso
[edit] Farm and Agricultural Workers
St. Bernard is listed as a patron of farm workers. Given his bio in the article, the rationale for this is hard to understand. He moved among the great leaders of his times; he meddled in church doctrine, monastic life, heretic trials, preaching, mysticism, politics, law, even warfare; but there is not a shred of a connection with peasants or farming. Presumably this odd patronage is not without cause, but the article is silent on this. A catalog of saints I have lists him as patron of Burgundy, Genoa, Gibraltar, the possessed, and beekeepers (also quite odd, though this goes in line with the beeskep attribute) — no mention of farming. If anyone knows why this saint is a patron of agriculture, please include the info in the article. Freederick 21:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] What really happened?
In the section on the Schism, the article says: “In the conclave, Anacletus II was elected by a narrow margin”; there is no mention of Innocent II being elected, merely “favored by many important cardinals”. On the other hand, if you follow the link to Anacletus II, you will read that “Cardinal Gregory Papareschi... was elected as Pope Innocent II”, a direct contradiction. The article on Innocent II also says that Innocent was elected, and Anacletus “counter-elected” afterwards. Now, I understand that conflicting viewpoints are inherent in a schism, but shouldn't this contradictory information be brought into line in the three relevant articles? What really happened in 1130? Freederick 21:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
