Christianity: Catholicism / Eastern O. / Oriental O. / Syriac / Lutheranism Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Catholic Church portal This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy.
	This article is within the scope of the Syriac Christianity work group, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Lutheranism (assessed as Low-importance).

Mozarabic Rite[edit]

Untitled[edit]

The mozarabic rite has its own text of the sursum corda, slighty different from other Latin Rites, do you think it could be appropiate to put it here? (Latin or English?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaniloVilicic (talk • contribs) 00:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC) Yes, it would be nice to put it under the latin rite with a distinct heading though--K kokkinos (talk) 19:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had forgotten this. But now I wrote it. It is interesting that the priest says "aures ad Dominum": ears towards the Lord, and then Lift up the hearts. --DaniloVilicic (talk) 01:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Family motto of the Howsons"???[edit]

Is this relevant? How noticeable is this family?-- 212.63.43.180 (talk) 21:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't relevant to an article on the liturgical history and use of the phrase, and should be deleted.Mplsbf (talk) 20:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dating[edit]

I have made a slight change to the lede (diff). It previously stated that the dialogue originates in the third century, but that's not accurate. Our earliest source for it is Hippolytus' Apostolic Tradition (c. A.D. 215), but unless we assume that the dialogue was new coinage at that time (by himself or others), which is exceedingly unlikely, it must predate him. On the other hand, we can't date its origin with any accuracy, so calling it "second century" or "first century" won't work, which leaves the locution I've added: it "dat[es] back to at least the third century." - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 12:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]