Talk:List of Coptic Orthodox Popes of Alexandria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This page is within the scope of WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on the Oriental Orthodox Church on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
List This article has been rated as List-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Egypt Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Egypt on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
NA This page does not require a rating on the Project's quality scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

Contents

[edit] H.H. John VIII?

H.H. John VIII was missing. This appears to be a mistake as the dates which were attributed to H.H. Theodosius III (ie 1300-1320) are in fact the dates when H.H. John VIII sat upon the throne of St. Mark. I have also written a brief article on Pope John VIII with a source so hopefully Wikipedia will accept it and clarify any confussion. I listed a CD-ROM published by St. Mark Coptic Orthodox Church, Troy, MI, USA as the source but I wasn't entirely sure about how to cite it.

[edit] Article Duplicate

Article duplicate with List of Orthodox Patriarchs of Alexandria. olivier 07:54 26 May 2003 (UTC)

The lists are only the same until 460 when the Coptic Church split from the Greek Orthodox Church Efghij
It would be nice to have a piece of explanation in the article. olivier 08:22 26 May 2003 (UTC)

One of links - Peter VII of Alexandria - is not correct to right person. Berasategui 20:10, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Khail or Michael?

It seems that part of this list is more Arabic than English. Shouldn't Khail be changed to Michael? --Valentinian 22:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed this question, & wished I had seen it sooner: a few weeks ago, I realized Khail = Michael, & have since added this to the relevant entries. Further, some of the Orthodox Patriarchs use the name Michael. So how to disambiguate? -- llywrch 22:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] History of the Papacy

I have set up the above page for the Roman Catholic Popes to cover the papacy as an organisation. Perhaps there could be an equivalent for the Coptic Papacy (and any other religious leaderships)

Jackiespeel 17:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Eliminating numbers

why? even the article about the current pope states him being 117th in the line. Gbnogkfs 21 November 2006, 12:12 (UTC)

The numbering goes back to Mark as the first, the list however legitimately (in accordance to the systematic used on WP) only begins with Timothy II. Also numbering creates the silly necessity of indenting restored patriarchs. Str1977 (smile back) 15:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The numbering goes back to a tradition, besides, the list (thanks to User:Ghaly) is complete again. First of all, I applaud Ghaly for returning it to its original form. Second of all, the Greeks seem to have an invalid claim (no offense) as they replaced Pope St. Dioscorus with Proterius (and so nobody says that Dioscorus is not a true Saint, read my argument first). You can also see the list here. Strl1977 said "Also numbering creates the silly necessity of indenting restored patriarchs" — indenting would look better anyway — with or without the numbering. Also, there are ONLY TWO restored Popes — indenting on 2 areas is quite simple (if anyone has a problem with that, then they would have to be ridiculously lazy). It seems clear, Ghaly, Gbnogkfs, and I seem to agree that it's well worth the numbering — a bunch of bullets look FAR too random. ~ Troy 19:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Well that argument doesn't convice me in the least.
Sure, Dioscurus was deposed but that happened for a reason. Legitimate in my view after what he had done in 449. But anyway, this is not about who is right or wrong but about neutrality. And neutrality is violated by the current state that lets Coptic Popes start with Mark (who was not actually a Copt, was he?) and the Greek Orthodox with Proterius. Either we begin both with Mark, or both with Timothy II/Proterius or both with Theodosius I/Paul. Str1977 (talk) 22:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Tooshay. I can't agree with you AT ALL on this particular issue. First off, what St. Dioscorus had deposed Flavius and others for supporting Nestorius. Also, St. Dioscorus had found that Eutyches had been lying when Eutyches "repented". Thus, Pope Dioscorus anathematized Eutyches after Ephesus II.
Secondly, Pope Dioscorus was deposed because he didn't want to show up in Chalcedon — which was quite a politically influenced council.
The real issue in relation to numbering: how can Proterius succeed Pope Dioscorus if St. Dioscorus didn't die yet, at that time? This is why an Oriental Orthodox Patriarch cannot be canonically deposed and replaced.
St. Dioscorus was the true Pope of Alexandria in my opinion.
Was St. Mark a Greek? I didn't think so. Neither was Pope Dioscorus.
  • ~ Troy 20:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:History of the Papacy

For the Coptic Papacy, this link will be extremely useful for some of the Coptic Popes. Take a look. [1]~ Troy 00:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)