Talk:Coptic Orthodox Church/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Coptic Pope 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Arab Conquest of Egypt 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Unclear differentiation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Council of Nicea 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Council of Ephesus 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: --Meno25 17:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Coptics ARE NOT Arab 

message: 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)
replies: text: Maybe it should be tagged for cleanup so it'll get better exposure. -- Witchinghour 13:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rather Conceited Article

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Council of Chalcedon 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Names in Coptic / Greek 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed Oriental Orthodoxy project 

message: 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)
thread_title:  (Over?-)Emphasis on Patriarchal Titles 

message: 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)
thread_title: Biases

message: 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)
thread_title:  Relations with Rome 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Please not condemn others 

message: 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)
thread_title: Ecclesiastical structure in the U.S.

message: 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)
thread_title: Tattoos?

message: Substituted at 14:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment