Talk:Franciscan/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1

For possible disambiguation: Greyfriar's is also a coffee market & shop in Chattanooga, Tennessee. --ZekeMacNeil 05:51, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Recent news

If a TV newspiece I just saw turns out to be accurate, the Franciscans have just lost much of their administrative authonomy, in a reversal of Pope Paul VI's 1969 decision. If someone has hard data, it is worth including in the article. Luis Dantas 10:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Sort of

No not their whole autonomy. They lost full control of the Basilica in Assisi. Rome has upheld the rights of the local diocesan bishop (a non-Franciscan) over the territory in which the order exists (which is not necessarily good for the order). This is part of a worldwide movement in Catholicism (accelerating under Pope Benedict) to strengthen the role of the local bishops (as contrasted with the alleged ultramontanist tendencies of John Paul II). It seems to be having a mixture good and bad effects.

shortening the article/breaking it into appropriate pieces

On another matter of rampant sexism and the promoted inivisibilty of Catholic women- "Franciscan" does not simply refer to the order of Friars Minor. It never has. See the article I have been expanding on the Augustinians for a comparison. The same principle holds. There are a lots of Franciscan orders (WOMEN and MEN) , and the friars minor is simply the main game (not the whole game); like the order of friars in the AUgustinians is the main game, but not the whole story. What about St Clare of Assisi? Wasn't she a Franciscan?! Puhlease!!! I'll be back to work on this. Cor Unum 11:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is generating a warning of being 40 kB. How about forking off a separate article on The Rule of St Francis, and moving there the discussion of the development of the rule and testament (leaving a brief summary and link here)? Myopic Bookworm 13:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

- Agree, rules deserve article of their own Zelmerszoetrop 23:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

-This article is really pretty bad. As Cor Unum points out it makes mere passing mention of women Franciscans, much less secular Franciscans and non-Roman Catholic Franciscans. What is needed here is a chart such as the one at which would then point to articles on each of these groups. There are over a million Franciscans in the world, and only about 25,000 of these are friars in the first order who follow the rule which is the main emphasis of this article. Jim 13:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


Some of the text under "Three Rules" appears to be work of a single researcher critiquing the work of other researchers. Particuarly in "The First Rule," the views of some experts are not defended at all, but merely brushed aside. Wasn't sure if this was original research or closely copied from a prof., but seems NPOV. Zelmerszoetrop 23:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


The Timeline of Chinese history page says Franciscans were working in China in the 1200s. Can that possibly be accurate? That seems crazy early to me. Carl 04:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It is absolutely true, and well documented. A small group of them were there -- this was, after all, Marco Polo's time, so contact with "cathay" was not unknown. However, they died out and were not replaced. In the 1600s Matteo Ricci, a Jesuit, arrived.HarvardOxon 23:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The first Franciscan mission to China started when Brother John of Pian Carpino left for Manchuria in 1245. Jim 16:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Also see the entry for William of Rubruck. He traveled to China in 1253 but returned to Europe. ↪ Jhymi  Talk 20:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV 2 - Padre Pio

The sentence "The existence of Saint Padre Pio's stigmata is beyond scientific doubt since his wounds persisted for over fifty years and he was examined by numerous physicians in the 20th century, none of whom could produce a medical explanation for the fact that his bleeding wounds would never get infected." either has a definite point of view or needs better documentation. Far be it for me to doubt P. Pio's stigmata, but after he died they took off his famous bandages and (a miracle!) there were no wounds. This might, to my mind, lead to some little doubt, even a scientific one. ↪ Jhymi  Talk 23:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, Padre Pio wasn't a Franciscan per se, but was a member of the offshoot Order of Friars Minor, Capuchin. While the Capuchins started out as a group of Franciscans simply following a strict interpretation of the order's rule, today they are very much an independent order with their own superiors and provinces. The easiest solution to the problematic sentences may simply be their removal. Gentgeen 23:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Capuchins are very much Franciscans. They vow to live the same Rule as the other two orders in the "First Order". Their official name is Order of Friars Capuchin. The other two are Order of Friars Minor and Order of Friars Minor Conventual. All three are co-equal members of the "First Order". The three ministers general of the First Order are co-equal members of the Conference of the Franciscan Family (CFF) along with the ministers general of the Third Order Regular and the Secular Franciscan Order and the president of the Franciscan Federation. All members of all of these groups and associated orders and congregations are properly called Franciscans. This is, in fact, one of the problems with this article (see above under shortening the article/breaking it into appropriate pieces). This article acts as if the only Franciscans are members of the first order, when in fact Franciscans are men and women, religious and secular, cloistered and in the world. ↪ Jhymi  Talk 02:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The sentence was modified to make it neutral and indifferent. The fact is that the wounds were examined by many physicians and unless they were all "in on the hoax" the wounds were reported as real. It is very unlikely that all physicians were all in on the hoax, but I guess no one will ever know now unless all physicians are re-interviewed by an independent medical board.

I also added references from Britannica and Columbia encyclopedias (presumably somewhat reliable sources) and the names and specialties of a few of the physicians who had observed and examined the wounds, with a link thereto. Is that reliable enough?

Well, citations about Padre Pio are nice, but I'd rather not be using other encyclopedias as sources. We should try to find what sources they are using and reference the primary document. Additionally, the section still makes unreferenced statements of fact. The information about St. Francis is unsupported, as is the claim that Franciscans have a significantly higher than normal rate of stigmata and visions of Christ or the Blessed Virgin. And with the recent expansion of the article, this section now spends more than half of its content talking about someone who was not a member of the Franciscan order, but the Capuchin order. Gentgeen 17:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the length and position of these sentences here are too long and ar ebest moved elsewhere for it has turned to a debate now not an encyclopedia. Give me a day or so and I will work on it. It should probaby be merged with another page somewhere. I will think about how to do it nicely. As for St Francis's stigmata, I deliberately said "reported cases of" for it was certainly reported, and I did not say he "experienced stigmata". Many people report things in history, some are true some are not. Do you have a better wordng for that? E.g. "he was a reported case, but of course there are no photographs, etc." This then turns into a general debate about what one believes in history, based on reports. As for the frequency of reports of stigmata (some of which are more widely believe dthan others) here is a link: As for the actual references for Padre Pio they are in print and I will get the reference to the book (and hopefuly the page number). Until Wikepedia scans all books what do we do with just a link to a book and a claim that it includes a sentence? Will someone go and buy the book and confirm that fact? Does Amazon or Google have the books scanned already or soon? Britannica was based on experts who would read the books, so what is the Wikipedia philosophy here? Suggestions will be appreciated.

I have no problems with the wording about Francis, it's just that there are no references. I did a quick Google search of the Vatican's website looking for "Francis and stigmata". Among the various documents, I found Leo XIII's encyclical Auspicato Concessum, which references Francis's stigmata in paragraphs 15—17, so we can at least establish that the pope has mentioned Francis's as a stigmatic in an official document. There are others there, but we just need one or two, really.
Regarding citing books, a book can be a perfectly fine reliable source. On the citation templates pages, the first template listed to help editors cite sources is template:cite book. Even if a book hasn't been published to the web, by citing the book, another editor can find the book in a library or their personal collection and determine if a) the book does in fact support what is being reported, and b) if the book is a reliable source. For more information about our policies in these areas, please look at Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research.
Finally, regarding the Pio information, please have a look at Pio of Pietrelcina. The article has at least three sections regarding Pio's stigmata, which are repetitive and also somewhat contradictory. It would be good for that article to be reorganized, bringing the various parts into one section. Those areas are also somewhat under-referenced, so your references would add value to that article.
Thanks for your commitment to this project. Gentgeen 23:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the Padre Pio page, as written now, is patchy at best and inconsistent in several cases. And it is indeed full of emotional angles on all sides. It will take about one week of work to rethink, research, rewrite and clean up that page. And given that there are several people defending various viewpoints, I fear it will get patchy again in 3 months. My plan is to make only small and gradual changes to it so it will improve in time. The point is that neither the defenders nor the detractors of his stigmata have made ther arguments in the most logical form. Nor have they pointed to all the research. In fact the defenders have framed the stigmata in terms that relate it to bilocation - a much harder item to discuss and debate. All we need now is someone relating bilocation to the EPR paradox and either help or hinder the case (just kidding). That will really make it complicated. The stigmata should be a separate issue from bilocation, etc. Anyway, I will put this on my list of items to think about. The patchy text phenomenon is, however, interesting in its own right, and is similar to the problems with early groupware systems back in the 1990s. But that is another issue.

The Rules

Wow. The section on the rules of the order is a series of commentaries that never get around to mentioning what the rules actually are. Could someone in possession of the information add it to the article, please? Thanks. Ninquerinquar (talk) 07:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

St Francis and Eucharistic Adoration

The Franciscan archives credit Saint Francis of Assisi for starting Eucharistic adoration in Italy [1] Do any Franciscan experts here have more sources, links, stories to follow this please? If so, it will be worth adding to his page anyway. Please post ideas/suggestions here. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 06:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Regis J. Armstong, Francis of Assisi: Writings for a Gospel Life New York: Crossroad Publishing Company, 1998. I just turned the book back in to my school library, but I'll look it up when I get back. There is a papal bull which allows the friars to celebrate the Eucharist. Francis writes a letter to the order encouraging them to do so and extolling the value of adoration. Qzxtvbzr (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Rule of 1221

"The rule of 1221 is more adapted to the needs of a monastic order..." really? I do not see any hint monasticism in the Rule of 1221. This rule is innovative in that an aspect contained in the rule is that of itinerary. The brothers traveled through Italy preaching. Owning monasteries would be a violation of sine proprio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brdrew (talkcontribs) 11:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Clearly the Rule of 1221 (referred to as the "Early Rule" or Regula non-Bullata) is not a monastic rule. Chapter 14 of the Rule is titled "In what manner the friars are to travel through the world" while Chapter 16 of the Early Rule is the missionary chapter for the Friars. The text of both rules are available at (talk) 20:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)fmsofm23

The Name of the Rose

The controversy on the poverty of Christ is in the background of The Name of the Rose. -- (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


Aren't they the Custodians of the Holy Places in Holy Land? Weren't the California missions a Franciscan responsibility (hence the name of San Francisco)? -- (talk) 11:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


The Franciscans receiving the statutes of the Order from Pope Innocent III, by Giotto, 1295-1300.

Here is a nice image of the Franciscans receiving the statutes of the Order from Pope Innocent III, by Giotto, taken by me in Le Louvre. Thank you to insert it in the article. PHG (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


I noticed Lihass marked the page as needing a cite for the Greyfriars comment. I can find a Greyfriar link that talks about the name, but I question whether the comment about the Greyfriars makes sense where it does. The name seems to only to apply to a small portion of Conventual Franciscans. The Name section seems to address the Order as a whole. I personally think the comment should be removed or placed in another section of the article.Marauder40 (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Since I didn't see any comments, I went ahead and moved the quote to the section dealing with arriving in England. I also added the requested reference for the Greyfriars name.Marauder40 (talk) 17:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Francis & the Papacy

An editor (or editors) keeps trying to insert a section on Francis and the Papacy into the article. I have reverted it several times for multiple reasons. First off a large section on the history of the papacy doesn't belong in this article, it and any changes belong in History of the Papacy. Second the text has little importance to the article in general. Third the text has numerous grammatical errors. If the editor feels the text really belongs they should discuss it here.Marauder40 (talk) 21:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It appears the same user, now under the username Kuriaan has tried to add the section again. Although the section has become more developed it still has many gramatical errors, duplicate information with existing sections in the article (i.e. "The beginning of the brotherhood") and things that need sourced (i.e. the statement "Innocent took pride in having built a Church which was now law-driven and a military power, using violence to coerce believers into submission.") If you would like the information in the article it should be integrated into existing sections. Also you need to remember that this article is about the Franciscan Order not St. Francis himself. Details on the history of the papacy belong in History of the Papacy. Details of St. Francis that don't contribute to the Order itself belong in Francis of Assisi. Marauder40 (talk) 14:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
what can be done to improve the section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuriaan (talkcontribs) 15:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I already mention what can be done to improve the section above. Since the entire article is on the Franciscsan Order not St. Francis you need to incorporate the information into existing sections. See other suggestions above. Marauder40 (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
ok i have gone through the topic of brotherhood and for sure there is duplication of information. So will it make sence if i contribute in this topic of brotherhood with my idea of papacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
It depends on what you are trying to add, if you are trying to add the entire section about what the Papacy is then I think you are adding stuff that doesn't need to be in this article. Don't forget the section already mentions that Pope Innocent approved of the Franciscans because they were loyal to the church. You can beef up the current section with some of your input. Make sure you check your grammer and that anything that is contraversial is cited. Marauder40 (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see this section around in the article anymore, but the relationship of Order with the Papacy was very important to early Franciscans. The early friars saved and preserved all their correspondence with the popes, and it is still preserved in the 'secret' library at the Sacro Convento... I know, independent research, but I've seen it and and spoken with the Sacro Convento's head librarian/historian, and the early papal bulls that established a relationship with the popes were important in legitimizing the order. There was a period where they feared the order wouldn't get papal approval. As soon as I'm finished working on academic projects, I'll sift through my sources and come up with the published research (maybe... wikipedia isn't really a hobby of mine). If anyone else feels the need, the books written by or collaborated on by Regis J. Armstrong can cite up half this article, that and (ran by the Quaracchi editors). Qzxtvbzr (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Key omissions

Exhaustive history, but how about an explanation of what makes the Franciscans distinctive in terms of beliefs and practices, e.g. the "group mysticism" mentioned in the Religious Society of Friends article? EEye (talk) 22:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC) Today's New York Times (10/16/09) has a long story about a particularly disturbing sexual scandal involving a Franciscan priest Cognoscente18 (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Article title

The current title ‘Franciscan’ reads rather clumsily as a standalone adjective. The list of redirect pages suggests a number of better options. My preference would be for one of the following.

Thoughts? —Ian Spackman (talk) 03:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we change the title to "Franciscan Order" since that already redirects to "Franciscan." That's what the article is about, as far as I can tell, the Franciscan Order - and I would imagine everything that is "Franciscan" can be placed under the umbrella of belonging to the Franciscan Order. Qzxtvbzr (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I would also argue that Franciscanism presupposes the Franciscan Order, ergo Franciscan Order should be the appropriate title for this article. While I'm aware certain aspects of what it means to be Franciscan or aspects of "Francisicanism" extend into categories of their own, they are all derived from their source in the Franciscan Order and can be traced back to it. These developments should be noted as evolutions falling under the umbrella of the Franciscan Order. Of course, Franciscans have had a huge social impact since the start of the order, so no title will fit perfectly to encompass the subject, etc etc, but I think my point is clear and new articles can always be written to address those far-reaching themes. Qzxtvbzr (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I certainly agree that Franciscan Order would be a great improvement, and I could certainly live with it. But since Category:Franciscan orders does contain more than one order, each of which is Franciscan, I marginally prefer that. Perhaps, if there are no further comments in the next day or two, you might move it to which ever of those two you then feel is preferable? (There is no point in waiting lnger than that.) Ian Spackman (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I was unconfortable too with the current title, thanks Ian. Franciscan orders would be perfect, Franciscanism my second choice, while I would like to rule out Franciscan order per Ian. --Checco (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Checco for turning up: I had become slightly worried that nobody had until today! I’d be very against ‘Franciscanism’, though, because although the idea behind the word is perfect, it just seems barbarous un-idiomatic English. There was, as I understand it (speaking as a rather ignorant English atheist) an early and enormous dispute as to how Francis’s spiritual insights should be institutionalised. So I think a plural version (probably Franciscan orders) might be the best. Ian Spackman (talk) 19:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Again, I completely agree with you, Ian! Franciscan orders is definitely the best title. --Checco (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I prefer Franciscan Order to Franciscan orders, but either is better than the current title. Xandar 00:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


Since the early Franciscans were several times subjected to examination by the Inquisition (the Holy Office), I find it ironic that a number of Franciscans later became enthusiastic inquisitors themselves, especially in 14th century France. Someone really ought to include this. No organization is ever wholly on the side of Good -- especially when it comes to religion. --Michael K SmithTalk 15:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


If the article describes the habit at some point, then I am not seeing it. Is it described? Varlaam (talk) 05:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Ecumenical and Non-Roman Catholic Franciscans

I think this section is starting to become unmanageable. Right now it seems any non-Catholic "Franciscan" organization is being added to this section. Something needs to be done to establish the noteworthiness of the organizations in this section. Currently there are hundreds of Third Order Catholic Franciscan groups of varying sizes and they are relegated to a separate page. We need to establish some degree of weight and noteworthiness for a group to be included in this section. Whether it be a requirement that in order to be on the Franciscan page itself it must be noteworthy enough to have its own article on WP or some other requirement should be established via consensus. Any comments? Problems within the section include, within the Anglican group, does OSF stand for "Order of Servant Franciscans" or "Order of St. Francis" or both? What is the "Company of Jesus", its page currently links to a page that doesn't seem to relate to it. Are all of these groups notable enough to warrant inclusion in this article? Marauder40 (talk) 13:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I have since fixed the link for "Company of Jesus" and another user trimmed down the recent addition of "Companions of Jesus" down to a line that fits in line with weight issues. But this section is still a mess. Any suggestions?Marauder40 (talk) 12:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)