Talk:Rosary

Opening Prayer of the Rosary

I think it’s noteworthy to mention the origin of the common opening prayer of the rosary (Apostles Creed, three Hail Marys) and why the Dominican Order don’t use it:

Catholic Cults and Devotions: A Psychological Inquiry

By Michael P. Carroll

"5. Most readers familiar with the Rosary will know that a small tassel is usually attached to the circle of beads I have described. This Tassel consists of a crucifix (on which usually prayed the Apostles Creed), an Our Father bead, three Hail Mary beads grouped together, and another Our Father bead. A religious medal of some sort is often found at the spot where this tassel joins the main strand of the rosary beads. But neither the tassel nor the associated prayers forms part of the Rosary as officially defined by the Church (Attwater 1956, 250-1; Hinnebusch 1967, 667). Moreover, it is clear from the archaeological evidence (Thurston 1901d, 396) that the tassel was not found on the Rosary when the Rosary first became popular in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. It seems likely that the three-beaded tassel, which had always been part of the Bridgettine Rosary, was added to the Dominican Rosary when the Church authorities in the early eighteenth century began trying to discourage the use of the former and encourage the use of the latter (see “Gaining of Cumulative Indulgences 1909; Thurston 1901d, 201-3)."

https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=gBlrL1A6lrIC&pg=PA198&lpg=PA198&dq=rosary+confraternity+bridgettine+rosary&source=bl&ots=-96_2U-vfO&sig=EJQVn5T0HxFy-JEzqXQO5NEkfCw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwin67q9jqXXAhWCEpQKHbn5AmoQ6AEITTAL#v=onepage&q=rosary%20confraternity%20bridgettine%20rosary&f=false

The Bridgettine Rosary

Historically the greatest rival in popularity to the Dominican Rosary was the so-called Bridgettine Rosary. Fr Thurston has investigated the origins of this chaplet.

He quotes from the official publication of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences:

The chaplet called after St Bridget, because she first devised it and propagated it, is recited in honour of the most holy Virgin Mary, in order to commemorate the sixty-three years which, as it is said, she lived on this earth. It consists of six divisions, in each of which are said the Our Father, the Hail Mary ten times and the Apostles Creed once. After these six divisions another Our Father is added to make up the number of her seven dolours, or seven joys; and the Hail Mary is said three times to make up the number of her sixty-three years.

There is no question that St. Bridget did assign the term of sixty three years for Our Lady’s life in her Revelations. It is therefore reasonable to postulate that the name of St Bridget became associated with the 63 Ave Corona to distinguish it from the Franciscan Corona of 72 Aves. The Bridgettine Rosary was almost as popular as the Rosary properly so-called in the 16th and 17th centuries. The little pendant of three small beads now almost universally attached to all rosaries, has been transferred, with a lack of any understanding of its significance, from the six decade corona (60+3) to the five decade chaplet, where no specific meaning can be assigned to them.

The Franciscan Crown - The Rosary of the Seven Joys of Mary

This 15th Century devotion is recited like the Rosary. It consists of seven decades of Aves separated by a Pater and completed with the Gloria Patri, after which two Aves are added (making 72 Aves in all, the traditional years of Our Lady’s life as revealed in a vision to St James of the March) and a Pater, Ave and Gloria for the Pope’s intentions.

See http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/dmiller/beads&prayers.htm

The following links shows picture of Dominican nuns wearing a rosary without pendent beads:

https://i2.wp.com/catholicsaints.info/wp-content/uploads/img-Blessed-Mariam-Sultaneh-Danil-Ghattas1.jpg?resize=329%2C414

http://www.hawaiicatholicherald.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/1dominicanssiena.jpg

Approved Form

There has been a bit of an edit war going on over the "Approved Form" section, with an editor having added the Fatima Prayer to the section (even though it is already mentioned in the following), and others rv'ing any attempts to take it out. It is my understanding that this is common knowledge that the Fatima prayer is a pious addition (and it is treated in detail in the following "Pious Additions" section), therefore it does not belong in the "Approved form" section (which would have very little purpose if it included all the pious additions in it). Perhaps what is needed is an agreed upon source to use for the approved section?

My specific reasons for saying that the Fatima prayer does not belong in the "Approved Form" section are (1) it is not in fact part of the approved form of the rosary (2) it is a recent addition in the context of the rosary's long history, and (3) as it is not binding under faith to believe in Fatima or any of the approved Marian apparitions, it hardly seems appropriate to include a prayer given in one as a required form of the devotion (although, to be clear, I do believe personally.) What's really needed though is an authoritative reference to the approved form. --163.1.150.29 (talk) 22:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Link templates usage

If you find yourself squeezing in four link templates of them in the same article, you really should consider joining one or several of them or start cutting down on linkage. We generally frown on over-linking in text, and this doesn't seem very different, except that the links are placed in a frame next to the text. If you have to scroll past three Mariology templates before getting to even one fairly clear, dated rosary (probably what most ppl associate with this term) I think you should start thinking about tweaking article the structure to accommodate more casual readers. Peter ^Isotalo 08:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not see it that way. I find templates VERY useful myself for they send me to new places in Wikipedia. If anything has to go, the many semi-relevant images need to go, e.g. St. Anthony with a Rosary and Crucifixion and rosary that are pretty but do not teach anything and do not lead anywhere. And the article actually needs a really good image of a rosary, right at the top, as is the image you added looks sharp, but it has huge beads and is not realistic. I have not seen a better one in Commons. But overall, this article has been pretty stable for a while and I do not see a need fo rmajor changes. Let us see what others say now. History2007 (talk) 12:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that you are quite interested and well-versed in Catholicism. At least that's the impression I get from your user page. This is very good when writing articles, because your knowledge of the topic will be very helpful. However, keep in mind that an article should also be generous to readers, especially those who know nothing about the topic. In this particular case, I belong to the latter, somewhat ignorant, category of readers, and for me this article is rather disconcerting. The biggest problem for me is that I'm a bit confused and daunted by the enormous amount of linkage I'm confronted with (5 pretty massive link templates in all), and sometimes it seems to overshadows the actual text. And I've been reading and editing Wikipedia for five years already.

As for the pic, if it strikes you as "not realistic", it's probably because it's from the 16th, which is five centuries from the past. I assure you that it's a genuine archaeological find that once belonged to a real person, quite likely someone of rather lowly stature. I chose to include that picture because I thought the composition was nice and because it illustrates a much older type of rosary. However, if you think it looks odd, there are a few more pictures of rosaries at commons:Category:Mary Rose Trust donation that you can replace it with.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but let us wait and see what others think anyway. As for the article being "heavy" now, that may be true... and it may even get more so over time. The only solution may be to have a "summary section" upfront that then telegrams the message, then gets expanded. The problem is that all that info in the article can not just get deleted, because it has value. But as you say, it does at times seem like a "very heavy meal" to a first time reader. So let us wait for other editor ideas anyway. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't commenting article content (text), actually. I was referring to the highly distracting link templates. Their relevance is marginal at best and should not be prioritized over either images or text.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I actually agree with Peter. The large number of templates on the side of the article for an article of this size does seem a little excessive. It might be a good idea to change one or two of the templates to link to each other a little better (i.e. maybe have "Other Marian Prayers" and "Roman Catholic Mariology" be listed in the Rosary template.) Of course changes to the template pages themselves probably need to be discussed on their respective pages. Marauder40 (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The last big template at teh end of the page is probably no issue because it is not in the way. Then there are 3 verticals: Rosary, Marian prayers and Mariology. As it turns out, I worked on the 1st one and built the other 2 templates, so modifying them is no big deal, although they are use din many other places and it might be best if one of them just gets deleted. But 2 templates per article is not unusual at all. In any case, I think the other 2 images mentioned above should move to the gallery anyway. But let us wait another day or two to seek other opinions. History2007 (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, even two fairly bulky link templates (never mind the two humongous one's at the bottom) is not a very common sight, especially not in highly specific topics like this. Admitting that the current article is a "very heavy meal" is a good start, but it should be accompanied by an attempt of clearing up the article of excessive baggage. And being bold yourself is far more likely to lead to constructive discussion than waiting for other's to do it for you. If you ever submit this article for any type of article review (peer review, good article, featured), a lot of what I've said will probably be repeated.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think this discussion is rapidly turning into much ado about nothing. There is so much to clean up in Wikipedia elsewhere and sooooooooooooooo much talk here about two templates. I will respond in 3 days after others have had a chance to respond. History2007 (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Audience and history

There is a long history section here that seems to be asking for its own article. The issue is this: who reads this article? There are several groups, roughly:

• Those who already know a lot about the rosary, may even pray it daily, and want to learn still more

• Those who know it vaguely, or are somewhat "occasional Christians" and just want to learn a little more

• Those who know very little or nothing about it and just want to find out.

And there are of course all levels in between. The third group does not really need to be burdened with the long history and "Key dates" sections upfront, so that should really move to its own article, with a summary here. Given that there is a large potential audience for this article in the far east, India etc. it should be more to the point about the rosary and its spiritual significance and less on dates. If people generally agree, I will make a main and leave a summary here. That will then open up space for the spiritual and religious significance. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

New sections

I moved out the history section, and now the article looks leaner, and more readable, but there seems to be a lack of the "spiritual significance" in the article. My guess is that in time 2 new articles will develop out of here: Rosary devotions and spirituality and Churches named after the rosary. The second one already has a section here, and I have now built a gallery for it.

But for the Spirituality of the rosary any new ideas will be appreciated. If you have ideas as to what should go in, please just type bullets below here and I will gather the relevant groups together and build the article. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 12:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I wrote that anyway. I also trimmed a few repetitive items, but now the Rosary Novena probably needs its own article. History2007 (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The Relational Mysteries?

Perhaps someone should include a section on the non-standard Relational Mysteries? Syberpuppy (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC) April 16, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Syberpuppy (talk • contribs) 01:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The what? --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Full Rosary

I have a rosary and I came here to learn how to do it. All the beads are the same size but the directions talk about a large bead. Also I was writing down the instructions that said, Lord's Prayer, Hail Mary 10x, Glory Be, and then the Fatima Prayer make a decade and you do five decades. Then the next part said a decade starts with the Apostle's Creed and five prayers. Why weren't those written first? That is basic how-to: write the steps in order! So now I don't know what the order is at all and what five prayers are you talking about??? Punstress (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The Rosary can also be prayed in full. Alan347 (talk) 13:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I don't think I like the update to the table. I personally don't think it is very useful in a table adding a column where the entire column is the same exact information. Maybe it would be better to just add a sentence before the table saying something similar to "The Full Rosary consists of praying either all 3 traditional mysteries or the 3 Traditional mysteries plus the Luminoous mystery. When praying just one mystery per day, traditionally the prayers take the following format:" This sentence may or may not even be needed since the stuff is included in previous paragraphs but it isn't summed up in that section. Instead of just reverting I will let other people comment. Marauder40 (talk) 13:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Marauder that a single value column is just counterproductive because it is b-o-r-i-n-g. Just clean it up please. History2007 (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The table presents the information as if the Rosary is to be prayed in that manner, while in actual fact that is just a derivation. The Rosary is to be prayed preferably in full, every day. Alan347 (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. A table with the entire column containing the exact same information is meaningless. If you want to add a sentence before the table stating something similar to what I said in the above section you can, but do not add a column with the same exact information unless you get concensus. Marauder40 (talk) 13:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Objects with rosary

• In the top picture, what is the object called in the middle of the red beads? And at the the end of the silver chain?

• In the bottom picture what is the object called in the middle of those beads?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It appears the artist is illustrating the pater beads. This is where the Our Father is recited and the mysteries of Christ's life are contemplated. The smaller beads are the ave beads where the Hail Mary is recited.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

==WikiP should be set up so that it's easier to get to the Rosary Disambiguation page. If you want to come straight here on a search for "Rosary", that's fine, but then put a link to the Disambiguation page at the top.==74.64.104.99 (talk) 10:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

These are both pomanders, i.e. pierced metal balls containing scented wax or spices. These and other secular objects were frequently attached to rosaries. They are especially prominent in portraits painted in 1500s Germany, where large rosaries, very often of red coral, were in fashion.Paternoster-Row (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

References

Wearing of the Rosary

The entire section on the wearing of the Rosary bothers me in its current format, especially with the recent changes. As far as I know there is no official prohibition against wearing the rosary (around the neck or in any other format.) There are several religious orders that "wear" the Rosary. There is however in the church the PREFERENCE that it not be worn as mearly a piece of jewelery. The idea being that it is a devotional, not a piece of jewelery. The general tone I get is that if you are wearing the Rosary as a reminder to yourself to pray, or as in the case of religious order to keep it handy for constant use there is no problem. But wearing it as gang insignia, dance club adornment, or other piece of jewelery is not acceptable. The only problem is that finding the exact wording and RS to support this isn't easy since it tends to be a matter of opinion and not official doctrine. The section as it currently reads is very unwieldy, not entirely correct (i.e. it just tends to stress around the neck.) But I am not sure how to improve it, especially with proper sources. I have found the following quote but I am not sure a Q&A from This Rock Magazine qualifies as a RS.

Q: Can a rosary be worn as a piece of jewelry?

A: "Sacred objects, set aside for divine worship by dedication or blessing, are to be treated with reverence. They are not to be made over to secular or inappropriate use, even though they may belong to private persons" (CIC 1171). Essentially, sacramentals such as rosaries must be treated with respect, particularly if they have been blessed. Reverence is the attitude of awe or respect that is most often given to sacred things. By its very definition, it is an interior disposition that usually cannot be determined by onlookers by appearances alone. A person may be wearing a rosary as a statement of faith, to keep it handy for praying throughout the day, or to avoid losing it. Those reasons would be indicative of reverence and would not interfere with the canon’s directive that sacramentals must be treated reverently.

Ordinarily speaking, then, if someone is spotted wearing a rosary, he should be charitably presumed to be wearing it for just reasons. Only if the rosary is being put to an objectively sordid use (e.g., a rock star is using it as a prop in a music video, obscenely contrasting the symbolic purity of the rosary with the immodest or immoral actions of the performers) can we be sure that the rosary is being treated irreverently.

Marauder40 (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you are right and it seems to be even stronger than that for those in grace, in that The Glories of Mary page 654 says that those who wear the rosary after confession and communion receive an indulgence of one hundred years. The Wikipage Religious habit says that the nus wear it on the belt and I am pretty sure that the Cistercians habit has it on the left side, as a 5 decade rosary, but I do not have an immediate reference. As for desecration, that is alas done to all sacramentals of all types in multiple religions, and is not unique to the rosary. I used to joke that the page Crucifixion in the arts should have been called Crucifixion of the arts. But I think this section is asking for a serious trim as you said, because it is mostly speculation and incorrect. History2007 (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, how does this sound as a possible new section. "In recent times the wearing of the Rosary as a necklace or piece of jewelry has been seen as contraversial.[References to gang and school articles complaining about such.] Many religious orders wear the Rosary as part of their habit. Church policy states "Sacred objects, set aside for divine worship by dedication or blessing, are to be treated with reverence. They are not to be made over to secular or inappropriate use, even though they may belong to private persons" (CIC 1171). A person may be wearing a rosary as a statement of faith, to keep it handy for praying throughout the day, or to avoid losing it. [Here could be the This Rock Reference] Wearing the Rosary mearly as jewelry may be in violaton of church policy." Other then the last sentence it seems pretty clean. Can you think of a better way to state it? Marauder40 (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I say let us go with what you have here, to the point and correct. History2007 (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, unless we get someone soon that says to the contrary, I will assemble the appropriate references and put it in when time allows. Thanks.Marauder40 (talk) 14:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Approved Form?

Given that there has been a bit of edit warring over this section in the past (as another user on this talk page has indicated), I didn't particularly want to rewrite the entire section without gathering a comment or two. From my understanding, there is no "approved form" of the rosary as it is a private devotion, but that the Church has set minimum standards for what constitutes the proper Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary with the flexibility to add in additional prayers as one sees fit. Specifically when Pius V standardised the rosary in Consueverunt Romani Pontifices he stated that it must consist of at least 150 Hail Mary's and 15 Our Father's accompanied with appropriate meditations (without being overly explicit as to what these meditations must contain). Sixteen85 (talk) 05:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Chain or string?

"Early rosaries were strung on strong thread, often silk, but modern ones are more often made as a series of chain-linked beads." Or: "Yet most rosaries used in the world today for praying are made of simple plastic or wooden beads connected by cords or strings." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.170.43 (talk) 02:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Luminous Mysteries controversy

There should be a section explaining why many Catholics who pray the Rosary refuse to pray the five Luminous mysteries.108.247.170.14 (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect definition of the word "rosary"

1. According to the Merriam Webster Unabridged Dictionary definition of "rosary" , the word "rosary" comes from the Medieval Latin word rosarium, which is from the Latin, and means "rose garden"; it refers to string of beads used in counting prayers or series of prayers or a devotional exercise which is marked by the use of beads.
2. Neither the word nor the concept of "rosary" is not limited to Catholicism.
3. This article provides the definition of rosary in a misleading way. Furthermore, its title implies that the "dominican rosary" is the only definition. Hence, the title must be changed, and reorganized under the category Prayer and the subcategory Types of Prayer and the sub-subcategory Rosary.

Aziza Cloud (talk) 01:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aziza Cloud (talk • contribs) 01:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

HAVE YOU SEEN THE TEXT: This article is about the Catholic Marian devotion. For other forms of the Christian rosary, see Rosary based prayers. For prayer beads in other religions, see Prayer beads? And there is also a :Prayer rope and an Anglican prayer beads article ... Hafspajen (talk) 02:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rosary. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101112211722/http://laici.op.org:80/eng/library/rosary.php to http://laici.op.org/eng/library/rosary.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rosary. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071218152800/http://www.montfort.org.uk/Writings/MontWork.html to http://www.montfort.org.uk/Writings/MontWork.html

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Removed optional in bold

I removed the word optional in bold font in the lede in reference to the Luminous Mysteries set by JPII.

John Paul II never said optional. He said it is "fitting" and "suitable" to add these and explained his reason for the change. And he is the head and legislator of the Catholic Church.

Marax (talk) 11:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rosary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080327085157/http://www.montfort.org.uk/Writings/Rosary.html to http://www.montfort.org.uk/Writings/Rosary.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121028192011/http://paulist.org/ecumenism/rosary-all-christians to http://paulist.org/ecumenism/rosary-all-christians

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Odd editing, breaking links

To editor Danielmonk: Why? Chris Troutman (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation page

WikiP should be set up so that it's easier to get to the Rosary Disambiguation page. If you want to lead straight here on a search for "Rosary" that's fine but put a link to the Disambiguation Page at the top.74.64.104.99 (talk) 10:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

°–° UwU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.245.13.208 (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Rosario Irlandés.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Where's any section criticizing it?

No criticism from notable Protestants or other religious groups? 71.173.17.62 (talk) 04:57, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Because their views on it, alongside the vicious bile spewed by The Atlantic, are best covered elsewhere.2A00:23C4:3E08:4001:8567:AB2D:A45B:13B6 (talk) 00:42, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Wreath of Christ

the use the "Wreath of Christ" in the Swedish Lutheran church are not wide spread, nor is it even something that is widely know that they exist.

The 2 or the sources points to small local parts of the church, the third is basically the guy that made them up talking about what they are. Their exist nothing to support that it's "often" used the fact is that it's not rare that the confirmation class don't talk about prayers at all, and the only structural activity that even looks like a prayer would be the confession of faith, but even that won't be said except during church service

Agge.se (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)