Talk:Coptic Catholic Church

Big words

"Schism" and "come into" or "dissociation" and "returning (reuniting) to"? Paxcoder (talk) 19:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

Whomever created the infobox apparently used Father Ron Roberson's tabular data presentation at CNEWA - (which is Annuario Pontificio data) for the number of 'ministers' and 'congregations'. That same source was not used for the number of 'members' - and I can't imagine why not or from whence the cited number derives. The existing figure here (250,453) is, unquestionably inflated (as I suspect is the AP data). But, that's neither nor there - it does seem that a consistent source ought to be utilized across stats, absent an explanation as to why some other source is better for a particular item. Given that, I'm going to edit it to the 2010 number (163,630) reported by AP/CNEWA. Irish Melkite (talk) 03:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm also changing the text in 'Orientation' to read 'Alexandrian (versus Coptic, as it is at present) Rite, both to be consistent with the terminology used in the opening sentence and because Alexandrian is the proper name of the Rite as cited in the CCEO. Irish Melkite (talk) 03:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Lead

I've made some editorial changes to the lead to: improve agreement (e.g., 'it (the CCC) represents' rather than 'Coptic Catholics represent' with subsequent reference to the action of its adherents), tighten language (e.g., in order to > to), convert language to common parlance (e.g., 'enter into communion' vs 'come into communion'), eliminate redundancy (e.g., The current patriarch is Patriarch), correct patriarchal styling (i.e., Patriarch of Alexandria of the Catholic Copts), correct patriarch's name (i.e., Antonios I Naguib vs Antonios Naguib), define the referenced cathedral as the patriarchal cathedral (the CCC has 6 other cathedrals in Egypt). Irish Melkite (talk) 05:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Source and Context

As currently drafted, this article is essentially a very close paraphrasing of Fr Ron Roberson's piece on the Coptic Catholic Church at CNEWA and in his book The Eastern Christian Churches – A Brief Survey (7th ed), with some loss of context. I'll try and work through it, sticking with Roberson as the source, but distancing a bit from his text and cleaning up contextual misunderstandings that have crept in here. Irish Melkite (talk) 05:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Catholic Church naming conventions RfC

There is currently an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Catholic Church)#RfC: should this page be made a naming convention that may be of interest. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Coptic flag.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Dubious origin

This article states the following:

Since the Council of Chalcedon in the 5th century and the official secession of the Coptic Church from the Church of Rome, the Catholic Church has attempted to achieve reunion with the Copts in Egypt many times.

Yet the Coptic Orthodox Church article states:

Due to disputes concerning the nature of Christ, the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Eastern Orthodox Church were in schism after the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451, resulting in a rivalry with the Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria.

They can't both be right, at least directly. The fact is that the Coptic schism was primarily with Constantinople, and the Copts were actively persecuted, as we see in Arab conquest of Egypt:

There was much enmity between the Roman (i.e. Byzantine) leaders at Alexandria. Theodorus was the commander-in-chief of the Romans in Alexandria, and the only other commander there seems to have been Domentianus. Among the civilians in Alexandria were two men of high rank: the non-Chalcedonian Menas, who was at opposition with Domentianus as both of them competed for power, and Philiades, the brother of Patriarch George I of Alexandria. Domentianus was feuding with both of these men, as well as with Cyrus, his own half-brother. Menas was also furious with Eudocianus for torturing the Coptic prisoners in Babylon. In addition, Theodorus was disgusted by Domentianus’ flight and abandonment of his troops, and took the side of Menas in their dispute. To help with the war effort, Menas recruited all the Greens in Alexandria, while Domentianus recruited all the Blues. These two factions immediately began infighting, and it was with great difficulty that Theodorus managed to stop them. He then demoted Domentianus from his rank of decurion, replacing him with Artana....It is said that Heraclius, the Byzantine emperor, collected a large army at Constantinople, intending to lead it personally to Alexandria. However, before he could finalize the arrangements, he died. The troops mustered at Constantinople dispersed in the ensuing succession crisis, and no help came to Alexandria, which further demoralized the defenders.

I would like to propose to change the sentence in question to read:

Since the Council of Chalcedon in the 5th century and the official secession of the Coptic Church from the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Catholic Church has attempted to achieve reunion with the Copts in Egypt many times.

Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Tfdavisatsnetnet: I agree generally but believe that a more correct term would be "split" rather than "secession" (which makes an implicit claim that the Copts were not carrying on the valid legacy of the early church, as opposed to the Coptic position). ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Good point. I'll wait a few weeks and make the change if no one objects. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 06:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Tfdavisatsnetnet: Not to steal your thunder, but I'll just do it tomorrow if you don't mind. Typically, this sort of change is a perfect case of a change where one can edit boldly. You made a nuanced point and have my support with no detractors, so I say let's just go for it! ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I have no thunder. I am glad you made the change! Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 03:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Coat of arms

I noticed that some users are removing the coat of arms displayed in the infobox, stating that the patriarch's coat of arms isn't the coat of arms that represents the whole church. This is true to an extent, but it isn't the case for the Coptic Catholic Church. In their case, the Patriarch's personal coat of arms is the coat of arms of the Patriarchate, and hence the Coptic Catholic Church uses the Coat of arms of the Patriarchate to represent it.

This can be seen in the official website of the Catholic Church in Egypt: https://catholic-eg.com

The Coat of arms of the Patriarchate (and hence the church itself) does change with the change of patriarch, as it adopts the personal arms of the patriarch.

This is also the case for the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, where they also use the personal arms of the patriarch to represent the patriarchate and the church.

Yes, I can use the logo of the church, but the coat of arms is more preferable as it official. Dylam X (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

If something is not actually the coat of arms of the church itself, it is preferable to use neither the logo or incorrect coat of arms; see my response to you on my talk page. Additionally, the version of the patriarchal coat of arms you are inserting is a likely copyright violation. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

This is version of the coat of arms is my own work, and it is not used anywhere else except on Wikipedia. Dylam X (talk) 17:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

If that is the case, it's still not appropriate for use in this context. It's not the coat of arms of the church and you have no source that says it's used in the place of the church's coat of arms. What you've presented is inconclusive. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I have presented you, on your talk page, evidence that this coat of arms is used to represent the church. I have shown you that the coat of arms is used by the Church on Social media, and Decrees/Statements of the released by the Patriarchate.

I'm sorry but I cannot find you something that says, "This is the coat of arms of the church", but the evidence provided is more than convincing in my opinion. Dylam X (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Here is the evidence provided for my claim.

Official website of the Catholic Church in Egypt: https://catholic-eg.com

The Spokesperson of the Coptic Catholic Church's facebook page - https://facebook.com/SpokesmanCCE

Official Patriarchate decrees and statements - https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=970036425271508&set=a.511971427744679 Dylam X (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

@Dylam X: Immediately after being blocked for sockpuppetry with an account you used on this article to feign a consensus regard in the cost of arms, you have restored your preferred version without additional discussion. Not only that, but the coat of arms image you restored is a blatant copyright violation falsely labeled as an SVG to imply you created it. While your admission of wrongdoing and willingness to improve as expressed in your unblock statement are admirable, this is not a positive sign. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I have explained before that the image is of my own work, I recreated the image of the coat of arms and converted it to an SVG. I had not checked in this file in a while, and I had not seen that it had recently had a notice of it being not the preferable type of SVG uploaded to commons. And yes, I reverted your recent edit for two reasons.

1. Your explanation for removing the coat of arms that I uploaded was because of a mistake I had done in another page that resulted in my temporary ban, this had nothing to do with it and is a completely different topic. You literally said that the explanation for your action was "Prior to a sockmaster tipping the scales". This is not fair.

2. The image that I uploaded was the coat of arms of the current Coptic Catholic patriarch Ibrahim Issac Sidrak. you replaced it with the coat of arms of a previous patriarch's coat of arms, Stephanos II Ghattas. See https://ecclesiasticalheraldry.weebly.com/coptic-catholic-church.html

And the image of the coat of arms of patriarch Ibrahim has been used as a consistent element of this article for months now because you mentioned there being "no consensus", but in reality I find out that you are the only one opposing the usage of this image, and for months I've not seen a single user trying to remove the image except you. My past mistakes on a different page do not constitute what should be done with my edits on different pages. Dylam X (talk) 18:45, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Either you're not being truthful again or simply do not understand how public domain recreation of images heraldry works. The file you uploaded was not crafted by you, but wholly identical to the version uploaded here in 2021. You laundered the image as an SVG file falsely imply you had created a vectorized version (the image was tagged as such prior to its deletion). You faked a consensus to impose this image on the article by edit warring to restore it (, ), using your sockpuppet WalkingPie7 to continue the edit war () as a means of avoid 3RR and falsely implying a consensus. Please note that the argument for months I've not seen a single user trying to remove the image is not consistent with WP:ONUS: implied consensuses only last until someone opposes the content. Your immediate restoration a copyright violation after being unblocked is extremely bad. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:09, 14 December 2025 (UTC)