Talk:Coptic Orthodox Church/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

(Untitled discussions)

Coptic is not some denominaton. Coptic is a word that means "Egyptian". It is what Arabs thought the Greeks called Egypt. So in Egypt there many different churches that are called Coptic, e.g. the Coptic Orthodox Church, the Coptic Catholic Church, the Coptic protestant churches....

The words "coptic church" merely signify that the church originated in Egypt, but says nothing about its faith. That is, the words coptic and orthodox are in no way similar in meaning. It just happens that in Egypt, the majority of Egyptian Christians happen to be Coptic Orthodox.

These other churches are relatively new and just adopted the "coptic" subname kind of like some protestant churches in USA adopt the "orthodox" subname. It means nothing. The fact of the matter is that the only "original" Christian Church of Egypt is the Coptic Orthodox Church and as far as I know, that is the only church that actually uses the Coptic language until today within its service.76.91.53.57 (talk) 07:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Put your text for the new page here. How do you differ from the Roman Catholic Church? The Greek Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholics both believe of the dual nature of Jesus the man. Is there any way that we, as Roman Catholics, can reconcile our differences too? In the present state of affairs (an impending war with Iraq, the "war on terrorism" and the persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt), it seems that we all, especially you, founded by Saint Mark, should join together in dialogue. We, as Christians, all acknowledge Saint Mark as the first Gospel writer and the closest person to have a connection with Jesus other than Saint Peter (or should I say through Saint Peter). I admire your strength of faith and your perserverence in the face of adversity because of the overwhelming majority of Muslim population of Egypt.

I think of us all...Roman Catholics, Coptic Christians, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox, etc. as followers of Christ(one family). In the face of adversity, we must stand as one, serve The Lord and STOP ARGUING AMONG OURSELVES.

American foreign aid goes all over the world, even though we have hungry people here. Christian mission aid goes all over the globe, even though we have Christians in need all over the globe, most of that goes to non-Christians.

We may have our theological differences, but we all believe that Jesus is the Son of God the Father, in one substance with Him and the Holy Spirirt. That He became man to suffer and die to redeem us from our sin. So what's the big deal? Let's join together, praise the Lord and put our differences behind us!

Not sure, but I think that Pope John Paul II has made some visits to the Coptic Orthodox Church; for all we know there could be ongoing dialogue there as well. I agree with the spirit of your sentiments; in the litany of the Orthodox Church in America at least, and probably others as well, we regularly pray for "healing of the schisms". It helps to remember that none of these schisms happened over night, but developed over a period of time. It will take time to heal them too; meanwhile we need to be patient while we pray.

That said, Wikipedia discussion pages should really be used to discuss ways the article could be improved. For instance, any information on the relationship between Roman Catholicism and Coptic Orthodoxy would be very appropriate to add here, including any papal visits, ongoing dialogues, etc. Let's try to focus on that sort of thing here. :-) Wesley 17:42 Dec 18, 2002 (UTC)

---

I have added the term "miaphysite", which has been used by Copts in correspondance with me. "Mia-" means "joined" and refers to the Oriental Orthodox doctrine regarding the Incarnation. They adhere to the formulation of St. Cyril rather strongly and recoil in horror at some Latin and Greek traditional formulations (Protestants belonging to the Latin tradition), considering them to be virtually Nestorian. The core was that the Oriental Orthodox use "nature" or "essence" to mean two things. Chalcedonians separate "ousia" (essences/natures) and "hypostases" (persons). Thus, we say that the Divine and human ousia are inextricably joined in the hypostasis of the Son, the Incarnate Logos. The Oriental Orthodox, on the other hand, use "ousia" to mean both "essences" and "person".

---

This is so written from a Coptic POV that the average English-speaking reader can barely decipher it. We get the point that just about everybody mentioned is a Saint. Normal usage is to "Athanasius" not always to "Saint Athanasius." "Pope" in English means the bishop of Rome. What is the Coptic word for "pope" as used here? When you mention "the Pope" and then "St. Cyril" few realize that it's the same person. Wetman 21:07, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)~

I agree that the article is in need of a rigorous editing, but your comments there about the pope(s) are more than likely to antagonize any Coptic editors watching this article. "Coptic Orthodox Patriarch" might be an alternative, but I don't think it's helpful to dogmatically state that the gentleman in Alexandria is not a pope. –Hajor 21:37, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

To the original poster, since when did the title of "Pope" or "Saint" only reserved to Rome!? Get off your high horse and come back to reality. Your hatred for the Church is no reason to desicrate the truth. The Coptic Orthodox Church deserves as much respect as any other church. It's afterall the cradle of Christianity and is well respected for preserving and disseminating massive amounts of Christian writings and influence.

I am some what dubious of the claim that there are 15 million Christians (let alone Coptic Orthodox Christians) in Egypt. This would be approximately 20% of Egypts population which does not agree with the 6% posited by the CIA World Factbook and the approximately 10% metioned in Wikipedia's own Egypt entry. Could someone please provide a citation for the 15 million figure, otherwise maybe it should be changed to a more conservative estimate. 128.42.62.108 00:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Many in the Coptic Church and outside have argued that the government figure of 6% (original Egyptian government figure and later adopted by the CIA factbook) is intentially low to undermine and marginalize the political influence of the Coptic people and give an excuse for their lack of representation in Egyptian government. The governement in Egypt unfortunately cannot be trusted with that figure since there is no accurate census figures and even if there was, they can be easily manipulated to suit the government's needs as his been done numerous times with elections. I believe the acurate number is somewhere between 10 and 20% (leaning more towards 20%)76.91.53.57 (talk) 07:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Raphtee (talk) 03:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC) You identify St. Mark (the gospel author) as a disciple. Of the 12 disciples, there was none named Mark. You should correct this.

Coptic Pope

The Coptic term for Pope is "papa"...it's actually a Greek word. It is a term of endearment for the Patriarch of Alexandria, not a title that confers any power above and beyond that of a normal bishop. The term was first used to address the Patriarchs of Alexandria, and was later "appropriated" by the Bishops of Rome. So calling the Patriarch of Alexandria "Pope" is correct.

Even if that is true (and I think it needs to be researched), the above prefatory statement needs to be included in the text, not all of us are as well-versed in the obscure historical origin of christian titles.

The word used for the Coptic pope is "Anba", with the "nb" converted to "m" in pronunciation. I believe its an Egyptianisation of the Syriac "Abba". But since it means "father", it is also used for other high ranking priests who are not popes. As a side note, "Aaba" is used by children to call daddies (which is a variation in intonation and stress form Abba). --Alif 19:40, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I suggest making a separate article for the title of the Coptic Orthodox Patriarch. almost half the article is about that, I don't claim it is not important, I just say it is not in the mainstream of the article, besides it doesn't touch the basic teachings of the church (I bit half the bishops are not aware of all these titles :) ) or what average Copts know. Also it sounds like the Catholic claims of primacy which is contradictory to the Egyptian church long history in fighting these ideas. --Coptic ray 16:40, 4 JAN 2007 (Eastern Time)

Bishop vs Pope

I disagree with the changing of "Pope" to "Bishop" throughout the article. The autocephalous churches all do have a distinguished name for their head. --Pjacobi 20:01, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

I disagree with the change too. Form What I understand, the head of Coptic Church is an equal to the Catholic Pope of Rome, not his subordinate in any hierarchy. On the contrary, the Coptic Pope (Anba) designated a bishop for the Ethiopian church, for example when it was still part of the Coptic Church's organisation. --Alif 00:27, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My rule of thumb has been to refer to them as "Patriarchs" prior to the schism, then following that, Popes on the Coptic side and Patriarchs on the Orthodox. And keep "bishop" as a lower-case generic term. In particular, saying "Athanasius the Apostolic, the Bishop of Alexandria" sounds like a deliberate attempt to downgrade him. –Hajor 01:57, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Except that the Eastern Orthodox also refer to their patriarch of Alexandria as "Pope". YBeayf 22:35, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there are currently three people who are properly addressed as Pope: Pope John Paul II of Rome, His Beatitude Theodoros II, and His Holiness Pope Shenouda III, the latter two both are pope and patriarch of Alexandria. Wesley 23:02, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I was searching for something more official, but I assume this should be good enough: http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/pope0264bb.htm - So Roman Catholic Pope John Paul II is fine with addressing Shenouda III as "Pope". --Pjacobi 00:34, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)

The Eastern Orthodox also refer to their patriarch of Alexandria as 'Pope' -- absolutely true, but he is much less frequently called "pope" in (non-Orthodox) English than Shenouda is. Check out the news reports from when the helicopter with Peter VII went down last year -- here, for example. And compare it to the treatment Shenouda is given here. I'm not saying it's right or fair, but in my experience it's the way these two are spoken about in English. –Hajor 01:24, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The US State Department used his full title in regard to the same incident: [1]. This dictionary definition for "pope" reads, 1. Roman Catholic bishop of Rome; 2. Eastern Orthodox patriarch of Alexandria; 3. Coptic patriarch of Alexandria; 4. male head of some non-Christian religions, such as the "Taoist pope"; 5. unquestioned authority in some non-religious field. It is correct and proper to address all three of these people as pope; if the title is less commonly applied to the second in English; that probably reflects more on the ignorance of English speaking reporters on this subject. Wesley 05:17, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Again, absolutely true (although it might be pointed out that there's a difference in linguistic register between a news report and a diplomatic note of condolence). In any case, the matter at hand is stamping on the spurious "bishops" that have crept into this article. I might have a crack at that later; if I do find the courage to enter the minefield, contributions / fine-tuning from the others in this discussion would be more than welcome. –Hajor 17:35, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Shame on all who slander the name of the true Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria and the See of St. Mark! His Holiness Papa Abba Shenouti III is 117th Pope in an unbroken line of holy fathers of the great city of Alexandria. May the Lord preserve his life.

The Arab Conquest of Egypt

I added a Controversial tag to this section because I would like to challenge the information on it. There is no evidence that the Copts welcomed the invading Arabs. At the opposite, primary sources who witnessed the events, such as Al Makrizy (a Muslim historian) and Yohanna Al Nikawi (a Copt historian) described the attrocities committed against the Copts by the invading Arab armies. Here is the link to Al Makrizi's account from an Islamic site: Al Makrizi about the Arab invasion of Egypt Other sources include:

1.Atiya, Aziz Suryal: A history Eastern Christianity. Krans Reprint, 1980.

2.El Masri, Iris Habib: The Story of the Copts, The True Story of Christianity in Egypt, 3 Volumes. End-Time Handmaiden, l982.

3. Dr Gamal Eldin El Shayyal, History of Islamic Egypt, Dar El Maaref 1967.

4.Dr Sayyeda Ismail El Kashef, Egypt at the Dawn of Islam, Dar El Nahda 1970.

5.Dr Nemat Ahmed Fouad, The Personality of Egypt, Dar El Kotob.

6.Father Pigol Basily, Did Copts Welcome the Arab Invasion?

7. S. Rapport, History of Egypt.

8.Mohamed Abdalla Anana, Islamic Egypt, Maktabet El Khanguy 1969.

9.Ahmed Hussein, History of Egypt, Dar El Shaab.

10.Yohanna of Nikios, the Arab Invasion of Egypt.

If no one responds to my comment within a couple of weeks, I'll assume we all agree on the above and will go ahead and change that section. Thanks Enremenkimi 11:24 Apr 22, 2005

I agree, this should be updated. My reading also indicate that the arab conquest in Egypt was brutal and pretty much destroyed egypt as a center of Christianity. There was no "gradual conversion". At the very leas we need a citing. I may tag it. Nickjost 22:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Unclear differentiation

Reading this article, and unfamiliar with Coptic Christianity, I find it hard to locate in the article exactly why Coptic Christians are different from other Christians. Is it a theological difference? If so, shouldn't the theology have a distinct section? For example, the article on Calvinism has a section detailing why it is theologically unique from other protestant groups. Quite helpful.

People on the talk page seem to indicate that there are a number of different Coptic churches. This is not terribly clear in the article, and the differences between the various Coptic churches are not fleshed out.

Is someone, well acquianted will Coptic christianity, willing to sort this out? —thames 20:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Given that you wrote this post 3 years ago, I don't know that it will get to you. But if you're still around, I'm an Eastern Orthodox Christian who have a strong interest in Oriental Orthodoxy; and I spend a certain amount of time attending Coptic church. I'd be willing to work on this article if you have ideas as to what in particular it needs. Deusveritasest (talk) 00:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Council of Nicea

I removed the sentence about authorship of the Nicene Creed by Athanasius, which is not undisputed by other denominations and therefore violated NPOV as it was - it makes no sense of adding the various other views here. I did, though, insert this view of the Coptic church in Nicene Creed where also other views of origin of the creed are discussed. --Irmgard 12:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

First three ecumenical councils

These three ecumenical councils are not specific features of the Coptic Church, they are shared history of all churches and are described elsewhere in detail, so I replace these accounts with links to the relevant articles. Moreover, both sections state things as facts which are, to say the least, disputed by other churches (Nicene Creed authorship and presidency of the 1st council of Constantinople which generally is described as Meletius of Antioch - after his death Gregory Nazianzen and after his resignation Nectarius of Constantinoples. Timothy of Alexandria did not preside the council, but he influenced the presidency by claiming the appointment of Gregory to the episcopacy of Constantinople was invalid which lead to the resignation of Gregory (who didn't care to much about the office anyway). --Irmgard 21:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

You're technically incorrect. The Assyrian Church of the East does not derive its history or theology from the first three ecumenical councils; they explicitly reject the First Council of Ephesus and only accept the First Council of Nicaea and the First Council of Constantinople. All the other major creedal denominations do accept 1 Ephesus though. Deusveritasest (talk) 00:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Council of Nicea

In the 4th century, a Libyan priest called Arius started a theological dispute about the nature of Christ that spread throughout the Christian world. The Ecumenical Council of Nicea (325) was convened by Constantine to resolve the dispute and eventually led to the formulation of the Symbol of Faith, also known as the Nicene Creed. The Creed, which is now recited throughout the Christian world, was authored by Athanasius the Apostolic, the Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria.

Council of Constantinople

In the year 381, Timothy I of Alexandria presided over the second ecumenical council known as the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, which completed the Nicene Creed with this confirmation of the divinity of the Holy Spirit:

"We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Life-giver, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified who spoke by the Prophets and in one Holy Universal Apostolic Church. We confess one Baptism for the remission of sins and we look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the coming age, Amen."

Council of Ephesus

Coptic Icon in Jerusalem

Another theological dispute in the 5th century occurred over the teachings of Nestorius, a Patriarch of Constantinople who taught that God the Word was not hypostatically joined with human nature, but rather dwelt in the man Jesus. As a consequence of this, he denied the title "Mother of God" (Theotokos) to the Virgin Mary, declaring her instead to be "Mother of Christ" (Christotokos). When reports of this reached the Apostolic Throne of Saint Mark, the Coptic Pope (Cyril I) acted quickly to correct this breach with orthodoxy, requesting that Nestorius repent. When he would not, the Synod of Alexandria met in an emergency session and a unanimous agreement was reached. Pope Cyril I of Alexandria, supported by the entire See, sent a letter to Nestorius known as "The Third Epistle of Saint Cyril to Nestorius." This epistle drew heavily on the established Patristic Constitutions and contained the most famous article of Alexandrian Orthodoxy: "The Twelve Anathemas of Saint Cyril." In these anathemas, Cyril excommunicated anyone who followed the teachings of Nestorius. For example, "Anyone who dares to deny the Holy Virgin the title Theotokos is Anathema!" Nestorius however, still would not repent and so this led to the convening of the First Ecumenical Council of Ephesus (431), over which Cyril presided.

The First Ecumenical Council of Ephesus confirmed the teachings of Saint Athanasius and confirmed the title of the Holy Ever-Virgin Mary as "Mother of God". It also clearly stated that anyone who separated Christ into two hypostases was anathema, as Athanasius had said that there is "One Nature and One Hypostasis for God the Word Incarnate" (Mia Physis kai Mia Hypostasis tou Theou Logou Sasarkomeni). Also, the introduction to the creed was formulated as follows:

"We magnify you O Mother of the True Light and we glorify you O saint and Mother of God (Theotokos) for you have borne unto us the Saviour of the world. Glory to you O our Master and King: Christ, the pride of the Apostles, the crown of the martyrs, the rejoicing of the righteous, firminess of the churches and the forgiveness of sins. We proclaim the Holy Trinity in One Godhead: we worship Him, we glorify Him, Lord have mercy, Lord have mercy, Lord bless us, Amen."

The Orthodox faith is considered to have prevailed at the council. Unfortunately, Cyril of Alexandria died soon afterwards. Saint Dioscorus, the archdeacon of Alexandria (considered a saint by the non-Chalcedonians but a heretic by the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics) was elected as Cyril's replacement. The Nestorians took the opportunity of Cyril's death to revive their campaign against Cyrillian Christology.

Can somebody explain why there are articles about the various church councils in an article about the Coptic faith. Why not just reference them to the actual articles about the different Councils instead of making this article that much longer? stefeyboy 06/07/2006

It is quite evident that the Copts are not Arab. Firstly, they did not accept the Arabization of their people. Secondly, they were not too keen on intermarriage with the Arabs. Also I would like to say that there are many countries that have lost their identity because of the Arabs. Another example of this would be the Yemenite Jews who faced so much persecution from the Arabs they had to leave their home land. The same goes for Jews in North Africa. Cluckbang 20:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Cluckbang

Coptics ARE NOT Arab

It is quite evident that the Copts are not Arab. Firstly, they did not accept the Arabization of their people. Secondly, they were not too keen on intermarriage with the Arabs. Also I would like to say that there are many countries that have lost their identity because of the Arabs. Another example of this would be the Yemenite Jews who faced so much persecution from the Arabs they had to leave their home land. The same goes for Jews in North Africa. Cluckbang 20:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Cluckbang

What you said is partly right and partly wrong. All Egyptians are not Arabs. This is my point of view at least (I am Egyptian). However, there is another point of view in Egypt, which is that the Egyptians are Arabs.

It is similar to what happen to Latin America after the Spanish Conquest. Even if an important part of latinamericans doesn´t have Spanish blood (but indian, african, italian etc.) they are considered Spanish as a consequence of cultural assimilation. And the same goes to all the population from Morocco to Syria: even if a great part doesn´t have Arab blood (but bereber, pre-arabisation egyptian etc.) they are considered Arab in all the World as a cosequence of cultural assimilation. It doesn´t matter if millions of latinamericans are pure blood indian who speak native languages or that millions of north africans are pure blood bereber who speak native languages...the first will be considered Spanish and the second Arab. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.146.210.74 (talk) 00:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

--Meno25 17:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

While neutrality is important for Wikipedia, I agree with you 100% Meno25. Egyptians—not just Copts—are (at least in terms of geneology) not to be labelled as "Arabs". ~ Troy (talk) 01:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Rather Conceited Article

I would just like to mention that the various authors of this article seemed unable to keep their bias out of the comments written. Though the Coptic Church is indeed quite interesting and there is always room for exuberance, many of the statements made seemed to be a bit on the self-flattering side. Please forgive me if I'm offending anyone, it is just an opinion. Outside of the comments on monasticism, the use of the term Pope (for a church member that amounts to a Patriarch) as mentioned above and the way the article seems to claim every church council before the split with the Byzantines, I can't really prove the intent of the authors. But, again just in my opinion, this would be a much more interesting article were it to present a more emotionally divorced viewpoint. Bonus23456 08:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)-- Bonus

Maybe it should be tagged for cleanup so it'll get better exposure. -- Witchinghour 13:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The section on the Arab conquest needs attention. The mention of persecution as a reason for mass conversion to Islam seems to be POV. Also the suggestion that Ethiopia would hold back the Nile waters if Christians were persecuted seems fanciful.

Council of Chalcedon

I tagged the Council of Chalcedon as POV since it tends to defend the Copts against their detractors rather than simply present the disagreement in nuetral terms. Eluchil404 02:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you considered improving upon that section to help it reach the NPOV that you believe is missing instead of just tagging the article? — [zɪʔɾɪdəʰ] · ☥ 02:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I have made, what I think, is sufficiant improvements, as per Zerida's suggestion, to consider this section NPOV. It is important to acknowledge that there are opposite perseptions of this issue and not to forget that, if you check the artical of the Council of Chalcedon, there is an inclination to consider those who did not adhere by it as heretics. This is because it is the opinion of the adherents of the rulings of the Council, in spite of how its rulings is seen and understood by ther other party, which is adhering to the School of Theology of Alexandria. So please remove your tag. User talk:Orthopraxia 12:04 AM Pacific Time, November 25, 2006

Names in Coptic / Greek

In response to the changes made by the user Orthopraxia to the names of the members of the the Holy Synod of the Coptic Orthodox Church, let me remind him/her that the names go like this: Name of the person as it is currently pronounced (Meaning of the name in English, and if it has no counterpart in English, then the original name in Coptic)

For example: Boula (Paul) or Shenouda (Shnouty)

Thus, the name in Greek is irrelevant. Copts are not Greek and they are not hellenized people. They have their own language and heritage, which is very much different than that of the Greeks. Therefore, please refrain from adding the Greek version of their names.

On another note, while I personally agree with your comment that Shenouda is the arabized version of Shenouty, some believe that this is actually the way it was pronounced in Egyptian/Coptic. Please see Coptic pronunciation reform for more information. But whether it is Shenouda or Shenouty, it is certainly not shenotius.

--130.189.15.61 00:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

In a counter response to your zealousness to provide the Coptic pronounciation of the name of Shenouda/Shenouty vis-a-vis the greek name, here is my response:

1) Whether I or you like it or not the original language of the church of Alexandria was the Greek and it became Egyptian/Coptic at a latter stage when it was cut off from the mainstream Christianity, first after Chalcedon and later after the Arab invasion. Most of the writtings of the Fathers of the Alexandrine Church was in Greek, except for Shenouda the Archmandrite who wrote in Coptic but was also fully fluent in Greek, as he used it at the Council of Nicea, which he attended. As a result of the above-mentioned, the names used by the Church Fathers were mostly Greek in origin, even if later on pronounced in a different way according to the tongue of the Egyptians either in Coptic or Arabic.

2) The name Shenouda/Shenouty is originally Coptic derived from earlier Egyptian name, still commonly used in Egypt, which is "Senout" or "Cenout", however you want to write it. This name is derived from two words, the first is "Ce", which means "son of" or "derived from" or "born from" and the second word is "Noot", which means "the deity" or "Lord God" or the "Almighty", you can relate to this from the commonly used "'Vnouty nain nan" prayer plea, meaning "O Lord have mercy".The pronounciation varies from Senout to "Shenout" in various parts in Egypt and eventually came to be "Shenout/ty" But, the church fathers, as I mentioned to you earlier used the names in the Greek pronounciation too, which i referenced you to check out the Coptic Orthodox Evkhologion (Big Liturgy Book) written in bothe Coptic and Arabic and you will find the name written in Coptic as "Senouthius".

3) Accordingly, this is not my enovation or choice, and I am not trying to hellenize the Church or the terminology of the names, on the contrary, it is a fact that greek names, greek words, greek terminology is used in the Coptic language and in the Coptic Orthodox Church Church books and in the Coptic Orthodox Theology, which was originally used by the Alexandrine Church Fathers.

4) This is why also the names of most of the ancient metropolitanates/Dioceses are known in their ancient Greek or sometimes Roma(Latin) names.

5) An since this is an Encyclopedia of information and of historical accuracy and should have a non bias or a non preferencial tendencies of documentation, I chose to provide a substential addition to this page, including the entire names of the Holy Synod of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria and the Titles of the Pope/Patriarch, honorific titles, historical notes about the title and the Jurisdiction section, which no one though of providing it before and I organized the box describing the Church in short on the side of the page to be on par with other websites of the same genre.

Finally I wish that you accept this encyclopedia explanatory perspective of providing accurate, historical account of the church on that page, even if it does not meet your tast of what is relevent to some and who do not care of certain historical and documentary narration of this subject. You are free to use whatever name you choose in everyday life. I am perfectly aware that the name Senouthius is not used and most probably will never be used in a culture that has a lack of or for a better term tend to despise certain historical facts of their religious affiliation.

I will conclude by reminding you that the Alexandrine Church Fathers saw in their wisdom to maintain most if not all of the Greek language theological and dogmatical terminologies from a theological context because they realized that the borrowing of the Egyptian/Coptic counterpart was remenescent of the pagan diety terminologies and lacked the proper affinity of the Greek language in matters of theology and dogma. This is not to discredit the Coptic Language, but I reference to it to reaffirm that the usage of the Greek language or terminologies is an established fact in the Church.

Orthopraxia, 00:54 Pacific Time, December 28th, 2006

Traditionally - it doesn't go that way, I believe. Greek isn't used, so the only reference to it should be used in the "Coptic Pronunciation Reform" article. It deals with the languge more than the church itself. I'm not too deep in this, so I could be wrong, but that is pretty much what I've figured out. IronCrow 03:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Oriental Orthodoxy project

There is now a new proposed project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Oriental Orthodoxy for a group which would focus on articles relating to the Oriental Orthodox Church. Any individuals interested in working with such a group should indicate as much there, to allow us to know if there is enough support to actually begin such a project. Thank you. Badbilltucker 14:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I am interested in participating. Let me know what is needed to to be done. Orthopraxia 03:09 am pacific Time, January 14th, 2007–

What percent?

IronCrow 03:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)In Egypt article, it states that 90% of Egyptian Christians are of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, however, this article states that it is up to 95%... what's the correct number?

It should be about 90%, I corrected the percentage in the page. If you calculate the total of Christians in Egypt, you will find out that the Coptic Orthodox adherents are about 90%. See the number of adherants in the same Page and do the math. Orthopraxia 03:00 am Pacific Time , January 14th, 2007

These numbers featuring in the article about the population of Egypt's non-Coptic Orthodox Christian communities are totally inaccurate! Having lived in Egypt for most of my life, there is no way that the population of the Melkite Catholics is 125,000 or that of the Greek Orthodox to be 250,000! I lived in Cairo and Alexandria, where most Christian minorities would be found, and these numbers are completely inaccurate. Please give the sources of these estimates before claiming that these minorities make up 10% of Egypt's Christian population. Thanks --130.189.15.61 19:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I must disagree with you, These numbers are not inaccurate but very accurate. It might be true that they may not be disernable among the over 78 million inhabitants of Egypt but nevertheless true. I also lived over 29 years in Egypt and I have Greek Heritage in my family and a member of my family is a Hierarch in the the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and All Africa and I have had numerous encounters within the other denominations because of certain church activities that enabled me to access these figures at different times. If I manage to provide some accessable tangeable proofs, I will provide as soon as I can reference to them. For your information, up to the early 1950s, the Greek Orthodox in Egypt were 652,000 in a population that was at that time less that 18 million. it is true that many have immigrated to different countries within Africa and all over the world and this is even mentioned in the Page. Orthopraxia, February 10th, 2007 03:20 PM Pacific Time.

This is interesting because I live in may be the highest probability of Greeks in Egypt :) I even have a Greek relative, and I didn't expect them to be that many. May be, cultures are too similar you can't tell the difference anymore. Also, may be very few of them regularly go to the Greek Orthodox Churches in Egypt? Because they are not as crowded as 250,000 might imply.

(Over?-)Emphasis on Patriarchal Titles

The article as it currently stands puts very great emphasis on a long row of titles of the Patriarch. Does this mirror the actual importance of these titles to Coptic Christians, or is this out of proportion? -- 85.182.127.103 23:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• I totally agree with you. I tried fixing this and removed a lot from this section, since it used to be an exact copy/paste of Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria. I hope this helps solving the over-emphasis. Please let me know what you think of it now. Thanks --Lanternix 17:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

In response to your concerns about the information in this Page. First, it was I who contributed most of the information regarding the Pope's title, jursidiction etc. and YES it is relevent and important, You may not agree or like it, but it is so. This is an encyclopedia reference and it should include all possible information about the subject matter, whether it is to your taste or not and whether it is overwhelming to the original cause or reason for your search of it in the first place. I also enhanced the Page of the Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria and added (pasted) what was relevent and needed to complement the entire required description from the Page of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria. The Row of titles as you reference to is not a matter of importance to coptic Christians, it is a documentation of established facts that happened throughout the years for a very ancient Apostolic Throne. I don't see you challenging the information written in the Church of Rome or the Eastern Orthodox Churches, such as Constantinople. If this kind of information troubles your simple aspiration of basic information, you can either read it and just don't recollect anything from it or search for another simplistic source of information that will provide you with a rudimentary superficial information that you can benefit from. Orthopraxia, February 10th, 2007 03:20 PM Pacific Time.

• Orthopraxia, it's not about who wrote what! The article is about the Coptic Orthodox Church, NOT the Coptic Orthodox Pope. Yes, the information is important, but NOT to the subject matter being discussed! I still kept the essence of what you wrote, and just removed what I felt was unnecessary information. Furthermore, I added the tag main so that people can refer to the appropriate page if they feel they need more information about the Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church. Don't take things personally, we're here to make the encyclopedia more accessible and easier to navigate. --Lanternix 20:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Lanternix, I have no problem with what you did, I thank you for it. My response was about what was written by 85.182.127.103. I found out about the Page of the Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church much later and after I had added what i had added on this Page, so I enhanced it and pasted what was relevent, I had no intention to either duplicate or over emphasis, but the subject matter of both topics can encompass the detailed information that was in both. I think what you did is fine, as long as the detailed information of the subject matter is available in the other page that deals with the Hierarch rather than the Church itself. I made a slight adjustment in the title of one of the paragraphs of the Page of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria to explain the verbiage. Once again I appreciate your input and help. Orthopraxia 01:30 PM Pacific Time, February 11th, 2007

• Excellent. Thank you as well dear Orthopraxia for your help and input. --Lanternix 17:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Biases

There's issues with this article, some along the lines as mentioned under "Rather Conceited Article" above: and it's very apparent by just looking-over the article, and very when read-through. For instance, where Mary is mentiond:

   and confirmed the title of the Holy Ever-Virgin Mary as "Mother of God".

No offense, but 1) only "Mary" is necessary, "Ever-Virgin" tacked-onto the front of Mary is a doctrinal bias: and anyone whether secular or religious who reads the Bible whether for literary merit or historical record can tell, plainly, that Mary has other children as it mentions Jesus's other brothers. It's quite telling of doctrinal-injection to have this statement, and I'm rather pleased it's there so that it points-out that attention is needed to clean-up the work.

It's also apparent in the ecclesiastical terms, which are specifically political statements, such as "When reports of this reached the Apostolic Throne of Saint Mark[...]", and numerous other coptic-claims which contradict historicity in this article. Other assertions of superiority and the supposed supreme authority of the Coptic Church are also apparent elsewhere. I have no interest in power-mad abusers of people's faiths or the silly claims made: keep the article unbiased, and this things needs a lot of clean-up and then a lock-down to keep anyone with the coptic catechism away from adding their view's overtones so overwhelmingly to this piece. Sheesh. I was interested simply because I get to meet an Ethiopian shortly, wanted some real information, and got religious propaganda: not desirable. Sorry if this is politically incorrect, but really, what's the deal here? Infinitelink 00:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is actually an offense that you make such superficial and deregatory remarks and let me tell you why:

1) Suffice to say that the reason for your search of information was that you were meeting an Ethiopian and that is an ok reason to get some information but not to make such comments about something that you neither know, or believe in or even have adequate historical, theological, dogmatic or ecclesiastical foundation in.

2) The purpose of this encyclopedia in to provide detailed, historical, dogmatica (if the topic requires it), ecclesiastical perspective(again if the topic requires it) for those who seek in depth knowledge about any topic.

3)Critisizm of information that is not to your liking or you lack the ability to savour or that is contradictory to your believes, does not give you the right to makes such deregatory comments and disrespectfull statements. You do not go and make such claims about topic discussing Hindu beliefs or Buda beliefs or Islamic beliefs because they sound ridiculous or trivial to you or because they are contradictory to your own.

4)There is always a reason behind every usage of any word or expression in religious beliefs. Now if you desire to know it, then ask, but don't make fun of it. That is totally unacceptable.

Now to explain this, I will tell you why over 250 million Orthodox Christians and over 1.1 billion Catholics use the term "Ever Virgin", because according to the belief and faith of these churches, the Virgin Mary was ever Virgin, before conception and even after delivery of the baby Jesus. As for Jesus's brothers and sisters, these are the sons and daughters of both Joseph's previous marriage, since he was a widower before taking the Virgin Mary in his household and the the sons and daughters of the Virgin Mary's sisters. It is quite common to call the cousins brothers and sisters in the Jewish tradition and also the step brothers and step sisters as brothers and sisters too. Now if what you claim is correct, you need to justify why Christ relegated the responsibility of taking care of his mother to the apostle John while he was on the cross, unless you suggest that he disrespected and insulted all Jewish tradition of his time, insulted his so called claimed blood brothers and sisters and insulted his mother too by doing so. Now this may be not to your taste or approval, and everyone respects that, but you have no right to correct by degrading other people's beliefs if it is not according to your taste or belief. You have the right to create a page discussing this topic with comparative perspectives and many people will be happy to read it, including myself.

5) Part of the description of historical events in ecclesiaistical matters is to replay the happenings and events as they happened , sometimes quoting from references from historical documentation and this leads sometimes to the usage of sentences that are not common in the modern day english usage, nevertheless they are correct in their refrerences.

6)What you claim as "coptic-claims which contradict historicity" and "the supposed supreme authority of the Coptic Church are also apparent elsewhere" is very vague and you do not even provide an example or a reason or even a counter claim, since you label it as such. Understand that this Page has historical facts, events that happened, they may not be to everyones liking. I myself don't like the supreme power that the Pope of Alexandria has and I don't like the way that the Church has handled the Church governance in Ethiopia since the begining and especially since the middle ages and during the 19th and till the mid 20th cnetury. But this does negate the historical facts and documenting them and my opinion is irrelevant here.

Everyone has to remember that the pages on the wikipidea encyclopedia may not be of the same opinion of ones beliefs or sometimes ones knowledge, challenging them should be in a polite, professional and objective manner. I hope that you can do that in the future. Orthopraxia, February 10th , 2007, 03:20 PM Pacific time

Relations with Rome

Can someone please tell me where I can find more about the relations between Rome and the Coptic Orthodox Church? Much appreciated, Tourskin 01:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Please not condemn others

I would like to please the writer of this page about the Orthodox Coptic Church to be more carefully when discussing things that make great divisions in Christianity.

"Nestorius however, still would not repent and so this led to the convening of the First Ecumenical Council of Ephesus (431), over which Cyril I of Alexandria presided."

"If Christ is in full humanity and in full divinity, then He is separate in two persons as the Nestorians teach.[3] This is the doctrinal perception that makes the apparent difference which separated the Oriental Orthodox from the Eastern Orthodox."

First, he says that Nestorius was wrong, and seems to condemn him, and, as I understand the second quotation, the chalcedonians believe the Nestorius teach.

It would be more correct to say, clear in the begining, "THIS IS THE COPTIC VERSION OF HISTORY", because there are so many diferent histories of these events, depending on the belief of historians.

For example, it would be interesting to see what some historians say about the Councile of Efes.

"There was no chance of reconciliation. Emperor Theodosius II called a council at Ephesus to settle the question. Working quickly, Cyril and his allies deposed Nestorius before his Syrian supporters could reach the council site. Rome backed Cyril's move and Nestorius was stripped of his position and exiled. Theologians who study Nestorius' writings today say that his opinions were misrepresented and probably were not heretical"-http://chi.gospelcom.net/DAILYF/2001/04/daily-04-10-2001.shtml

Affirming my reverence for the See of Saint Mark, and my love for the church of Egipt, I believe that you will think at my reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruben-Adrian (talk • contribs) 20:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Ecclesiastical structure in the U.S.

Can someone please explain which bishop(s) most Coptic Orthodox in the U.S. are under? I'm familiar with the Diocese of Southern California and the Diocese of the Southern U.S. But that doesn't seem to account for many areas of the country. Deusveritasest (talk) 06:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. I just found the answer, that all churches outside of the South and Southern California are under the care of the Archdiocese, in this article. Deusveritasest (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Tattoos?

Having recently been in Egypt I learned that many members of the Coptic Church have crosses tattooed on their hands. Does anyone have any information about this practice, such as when and why it started? (79.190.69.142 (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC))

Archive 1

Archive 2

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Coptic Orthodox Church/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs more reference citations and references. Badbilltucker 17:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 17:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 14:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)