Talk:List of Coptic Orthodox Popes of Alexandria
|WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy||(Rated List-class)|
|WikiProject Egypt||(Rated List-class, Low-importance)|
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.
- 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)
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)
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)
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)
Re:History of the Papacy
This list is totally unsourced
There is not a valid reference in this article. I put a citation needed banner on the top of the page. Please give valid sources for this information. As it stands now the whole article could be removed as unsourced. There must be a valid list available for Coptic Orthodox Popes in some book. No source equals fiction to a Wiki reader. Jason3777 (talk) 03:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- There is probably a good deal of reliable lists and chronologies in books, but the same can't be said for online refs, so I agree that Amazon isn't a good reference. Having said that, there might be a few salvageable lists on the internet, specifically this one or in terms of the history of the popes, a collection like this might be useful. ~ Troy (talk) 02:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't comment about Amazon. Basically, I need a source for St. Mark being the first Coptic Pope, plus it would only seem reasonable if the rest of the Popes were listed. Internet or hardcopy would be fine. Are you saying "There is probably a good deal of reliable...." but you cannot produce any of the documentation? The Coptic Church must have a list of Popes somewhere. If they don't, well... it be fiction. Don't y'all have an official book in English that list your Popes. There must be a sanctioned list of Coptic Popes in English out there somewhere. Jason3777 (talk) 06:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- One last thing, there are zero sources for this list - where did it come from? Should I take it as fact just because it is on Wikipedia and has no source in the entire article? I don't do that. Y'all need a reference on your Popes, there must be one somewhere. If not, I would hate to delete it (i.e. the whole article) - but I would consider it - see above - although I would much rather have a sourced article. Come on, one legitimate English source on the Coptic Popes. If no one can provide one, is it a legitimate article? Jason3777 (talk) 06:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I have a bit of trouble understanding what method was used to determine the dates of each Patriarch's years in office. Does the ordination of a competing patriarch (whether Arian or Chalcedonian) really make the original Pope "deposed"? The Cake 2 (talk) 23:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)