Talk:Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria

message: Some areas lack NPOV, like the following sentence: "Today, some 300,000 Orthodox Christians constitute the Patriarchate of Alexandria in Egypt, the highest number since the Roman Empire." I'm pretty sure the Coptic Orthodox claim to be the successor Chruch to the ancient See of Alexandria. 
Starzaz 20:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They both claim to be the successor Church to the ancient See of Alexandria. Ohff (talk) 10:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non NPOV 

message: isn't there a diocese or archdiocese of this Patriarchate in North America?
Richardson mcphillips1 06:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GOC of Alexandria in NA? 

message: Title "Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria" has 1180 hits on Google Books Search: Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria on Google Books Search and 88 hits on Google Scholar Search: Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria on Google Scholar Search. Sorabino (talk) 11:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria 

message: Very Reverend Archimandrite Dr Elpidophoros Lambriniadis, Chief Secretary of the Holy and Sacred Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, said in a talk many years ago something about the Patriarch of Constantinople granting "the right of jurisdiction over the remaining of Africa to the Patriarchate of Alexandria in 2002"  (see here)  This would help the article in indicating a shift from a Greek cultural approach to an Alexandrian approach (still Hellenistic, I know, but not specifically Greek) The article could also benefit from a bit about Russian missionary activity in Africa. Not to change it into an article about "Orthodoxy in Africa" but to give some background to the present reality. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 02:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "and all Africa" 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved.  —usernamekiran (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: * AgreeIn 30 years of being an Orthodox Christian and 3 years as an Orthodox priest, I cannot recall ever hearing someone speak of the "Church of Antioch" or the "Church of Alexandria" when speaking about the patriarchates. On their webpages, they refer to themselves as the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and all Africa and the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East; so should Wikipedia.Xenophore; talk 18:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 25 May 2022 

message: A section on supposed union with Rome, presenting itself as based primarily on one Runciman's "The Eastern Schism", has been hidden. 
A further review of that source's actual content is needed, but if relayed accurately here, then the source does not correctly present history. 
As many other writings will reflect, the Church of Alexandria, in union with the Byzantine Church, followed its teaching as regards the Latin body and as regards union with it. 
It should be noted, in relation to claims of the hidden passage, that the actual time spent by any 'crusaders' in Egypt was historically very little. 
For the claims about Patriach Nikolas I, see also the Russian article on him: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B9_I_(%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%85_%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9) Zusty001 (talk) 09:56, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Undone. Runciman knew what he was talking about, the claim is presented clearly and correctly. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You may vouch for him, but insofar as the previously hidden text reflects his work, the relevant portion of his work is without historical validity.  The anecdotes about Latin merchants, prisoners receiving Communion and free common worship with Latin "chaplains" are without citation in Runciman and contradict better sources - the same goes for claims about ordination of "Latin priest" (General idea of Union with Rome at time appears derived from Potthast, perhaps this specific anecdote as well).  See previous link and its sources.  Representation of the sending of representative to IV Lateran Council is spurious (Albeit the sending of a representative is historical).  May someone see this and remove portion once more as needed. Zusty001 (talk) 08:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: For future editors - the letters summarised in Potthast (Who does not make the claims of Runciman) are available in Migne, Vol. 216, Book XIV, Letters 146, 147, 148. Zusty001 (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Union With Rome