This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article sounds almost like an ad for the church. Encyclopedia articles are not supposed to use the second person, use informal words like "okay", or gush about the subject. Please read WP:NPOV and rewrite the article in a neutral, scholarly way. — An gr 07:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
For Roman Catholics, celebrating the Eucharist together with groups who are not in full communion with Rome without pressing necessity is a violation of the communion of the Roman Catholic Church itself, as it simulates a union which, unluckily, does not exist yet. Not being able to celebrate the Eucharist together is a painful and constant reminder to work together to restitute what Christ wanted us to be: One. -- Usquam ( talk) 12:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I believe, if you read the entry in the article clearly states what you point out, so what's your question/issue? Mikeindc3 ( talk) 16:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
The current version of the article here seems better and less single view point oriented. It is my opinion that the article would be stronger by taking out the section about the Roman Catholic Church's canon law and perhaps moving that to a foot note. A focus on the NAOCC's canon on the subject might be more informative. ( AndrewTJones ( talk) 16:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC))
In a recent interview in Salt Lake City 'archbishop' Seneco claimed that there were approximately 8 to 10 Thousand followers in his Church. He claimed he had 21 parishes at the time (that number has dropped significantly. That would make about 450 congregants at each parish...that number could not be verified and appears somewhat exaggerated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.210.66 ( talk) 21:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
St. Mychal Judge Church is no longer listed as a 'parish' of the NAOCC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.210.66 ( talk) 16:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
The entire article is a tissue of lies and should be deleted....NOTHING CAN VE VERIFIED! — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Bill55448 (
talk •
contribs) 18:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Mr Seneco resigned on April 1, 2013 (under threat of deposition at a Synod held March 20, 2013) without a successor and the NAOCC disbanded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.210.66 ( talk) 18:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
== ANGR VANDALISM
THIS PERSON CONTINUES TO VANDALIZE THE PAGE DEALING WITH THE NAOCC BY REMOVING ALL REFERENCES TO MR SENECO THAT MIGHT BE VIEWED AS NEGATIVE. THEY HAVE NO 'PROTECTED' THE PAGE TO PREVENT ANY CHANGES AND THAT HAS BEEN REPORTED. VERY SAD THAT THEY INSIST ON COVERING UP THE TRUTH!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.210.66 ( talk) 20:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
== EXAGGERATION??
In the article, as written, there is a claim of 22 communities and 10,000 followers. That works oy to approximately 454 persons per group/parish/community. Seems exaggerated as I have never seen a single group that large? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.210.66 ( talk) 11:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks to Jreferee for cleaning up the article and adding reliable sources! The article mentions that the NAOCC is not affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church, but it would perhaps also be good to point out the it is not affiliated with the Union of Utrecht either, which is the main communion of Old Catholic churches in Europe and which is in full communion with the Anglican Communion and thus with the Episcopal Church. Angr ( talk) 06:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Article remain grossly inaccurate and continues to misrepresent reality. NOTHING is said about the recent schism or +Seneco' resignation. Article has been locked to prevent the truth being told by others. NOT HELPFUL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.210.66 ( talk) 21:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
No....I an interview with the Salt Lake City Newspaper +Seneco made a similar claims of 10,000 people....and that averaged, approximately, 450 people per parish. I am not sure there is a single parish of that size in any Old Catholic group. You will simply continue to lie for Mr Seneco and cover up the truth. I will not feed into your fantasies. Since you 'locked' the article you have done grave damage to wikipedia and I am comfortable having reported that to them and I have provided them the evidence you seek. I wish you and Mr Seneco all the best in your legal problems — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.210.66 ( talk) 16:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
I am just curious - does the 'link' to the NAOCC site constitute a verifiable source or should it be noted as unverified? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.210.66 ( talk) 18:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
And....as usual.....I am told to post in 'Talk' regarding to changes and updates to this article in Wikipedia and I never get any responses to any of my inquiries. It is pretty clear that no one is going to ever allow the truth to be told and will continue to 'hide' behind 'verifiable' source argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.210.66 ( talk) 14:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
The link provided at the end of the article appears to be DEAD...I noted it for the record — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.210.66 ( talk) 03:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
SO....APPARENTLY ITS A BLP VIOLATION TO MENTION THE NAME OF MICHAEL SENECO...BUT NO ONE ELSE? MAY I SUGGEST THAT THIS ARTICLE BE FAIRLY ASSESSED AND A DETERMINATION MADE IF IT REALLY SERVES ANY PURPOSE ANY LONGER? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.210.66 ( talk) 19:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
http://archfraud.blogspot.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.210.66 ( talk) 00:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
...Arch Fraud blog is not a reliable, authoritative source for Wikipedia citation purposes; why can't you get that through your obviously thick skull? If you'll look at the "Welcome" message on my talk page from back when I first posted around here, you'll find links to all the resources you'll need to learn how to properly (and that's the operative word) cite things around here. The Arch Fraud blog doesn't qualify; and so that's why people keep removing, from the NAOCC article, the link to it that you keep stubbornly inserting. While the Arch Fraud blog may or may not contain accurate information, it's, at best, an emotional, one-sided, rant with an obvious ax to grind, just exactly like everything you've been trying to post, and which editors and administrators have removed and then warned you about. Plus, remember that I've communicated with the woman who mounted the Arch Fraud blog, and even she said she should probably take it down and that she probably will; and so if she did, then just look: the citation source would go away and there'd be a dead link in the article. Citation sources need to be enduring, and credible... not built on anger and whim like that Arch Fraud blog.
Additionally, in the case of that Arch Fraud blog, there's another problem: The bishop (Martin) who authorized the inclusion of his private letters and emails to and from Seneco not only had no right to so authorize, but said authorization and disclosure might even be illegal, since it amounts, in effect, to a personnel matter. Moreover -- and this is really the most salient part -- such communications, especially regarding clergy, are just so, so, inherently confidential; and someone who calls himself a bishop should know, intuitively, that such disclosure is so fundamentaly wrong that I, for one, would question whether even the seal of the confessional actually even means anything to him, and/or could ever be relied upon. If a priest's seal of the confessional has no meaning, then he's done. I don't know about you, but Archbishop Dominic Martin has permanently lost credibility with at least me. Also, when I contacted Salvato, one of the other people whose communications where disclosed in the Arch Fraud blog, he didn't even know about it, and was appalled and angered by its disclosures... for the exact same reasons I just cited.
Wikipedia cannot get itself mired down in such shenanigans... shenanigans which, by the way, ever further contribute to the Arch Fraud blog's being unqualified to be a Wikipedia citation source! If you're clergy (which I'm guessing you are, else why would any of this matter so much to you), then how can you not already understand all that without having to have it explained to you like this? What? Are you new or something?
I made a direct contact (via email) with this guy and never got any reponse. He did update his personal page with endless threats against me and others. After claiming to be 'disinterested' he wrote the following comments which indicate he simply does not want to work with me. So we are finished here:
"...BE WARNED: You will never get past the system of checks and balances, here. I, for one, am now "watching" the NAOCC page; and am now notified of every change. I will reverse your changes just minutes to hours after you make them (if they're not per Wikipedia rules); and I have the patience of Job, and will just do it, and do it, and do it, and outlast you, no matter how long you keep it up. So you might as well just stop trying."
So its pretty obvious he does not want to really discuss anything - though he insists on my talk page he does want to work things out. He also seems obcessed with me remaining anonymous ... though I follow all the guidelines as provided. I wish him well ( 76.17.210.66 ( talk) 01:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)).
Today (12 June 2014) the vandalism of the article resumed. This time it was by the user at IP address 68.199.222.78, who posted, at the end of the "History" section, the words...
"The founder, Michael Seneco, was not a priest. He was not an archbishop."
...and then s/he cited, once again, the wholly-unreliable (and so, therefore, not useful for citations on Wikipedia) "ArchFraud" website.
Please read all that has been written on this "talk" page, above, to understand the problem, and why the "ArchFraud" site may not be cited, nor, without proper citation, it may not be said that Seneco was or wasn't either a priest or a bishop.
I have offered, and offered, and offered -- 'til I'm blue in the face, it seems -- to help get this sort of information into the article properly, with Wikipedia-acceptable references; but whomever keeps cowardly doing this vandalism just won't privately contact me (though s/he claimed s/he did, above; but, trust me, that was a lie) so that I may learn what s/he knows, and learn of whom to contact about it, and then try to document it in a Wikipedia-acceptable manner so that it may be placed into the article with proper references. Instead, s/he just keeps vandalizing the article, over and over again, with the same ol' same ol'...
...which I promised, above, I would not allow. So it should not surprise him/her that his/her today's vandalism has been promptly reversed... as promised.
I invite, yet again, the party or parties who keep doing this to please privately contact me (all my contact info is on my user page), in complete confidence, so that what the vandal keeps trying to do may be done properly, per Wikipedia standards. Until and unless that happens, the information that the vandal keeps trying to put into the article simply ain't gonna' stay there. Period.
Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) ( talk) 19:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article sounds almost like an ad for the church. Encyclopedia articles are not supposed to use the second person, use informal words like "okay", or gush about the subject. Please read WP:NPOV and rewrite the article in a neutral, scholarly way. — An gr 07:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
For Roman Catholics, celebrating the Eucharist together with groups who are not in full communion with Rome without pressing necessity is a violation of the communion of the Roman Catholic Church itself, as it simulates a union which, unluckily, does not exist yet. Not being able to celebrate the Eucharist together is a painful and constant reminder to work together to restitute what Christ wanted us to be: One. -- Usquam ( talk) 12:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I believe, if you read the entry in the article clearly states what you point out, so what's your question/issue? Mikeindc3 ( talk) 16:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
The current version of the article here seems better and less single view point oriented. It is my opinion that the article would be stronger by taking out the section about the Roman Catholic Church's canon law and perhaps moving that to a foot note. A focus on the NAOCC's canon on the subject might be more informative. ( AndrewTJones ( talk) 16:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC))
In a recent interview in Salt Lake City 'archbishop' Seneco claimed that there were approximately 8 to 10 Thousand followers in his Church. He claimed he had 21 parishes at the time (that number has dropped significantly. That would make about 450 congregants at each parish...that number could not be verified and appears somewhat exaggerated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.210.66 ( talk) 21:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
St. Mychal Judge Church is no longer listed as a 'parish' of the NAOCC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.210.66 ( talk) 16:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
The entire article is a tissue of lies and should be deleted....NOTHING CAN VE VERIFIED! — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Bill55448 (
talk •
contribs) 18:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Mr Seneco resigned on April 1, 2013 (under threat of deposition at a Synod held March 20, 2013) without a successor and the NAOCC disbanded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.210.66 ( talk) 18:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
== ANGR VANDALISM
THIS PERSON CONTINUES TO VANDALIZE THE PAGE DEALING WITH THE NAOCC BY REMOVING ALL REFERENCES TO MR SENECO THAT MIGHT BE VIEWED AS NEGATIVE. THEY HAVE NO 'PROTECTED' THE PAGE TO PREVENT ANY CHANGES AND THAT HAS BEEN REPORTED. VERY SAD THAT THEY INSIST ON COVERING UP THE TRUTH!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.210.66 ( talk) 20:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
== EXAGGERATION??
In the article, as written, there is a claim of 22 communities and 10,000 followers. That works oy to approximately 454 persons per group/parish/community. Seems exaggerated as I have never seen a single group that large? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.210.66 ( talk) 11:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks to Jreferee for cleaning up the article and adding reliable sources! The article mentions that the NAOCC is not affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church, but it would perhaps also be good to point out the it is not affiliated with the Union of Utrecht either, which is the main communion of Old Catholic churches in Europe and which is in full communion with the Anglican Communion and thus with the Episcopal Church. Angr ( talk) 06:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Article remain grossly inaccurate and continues to misrepresent reality. NOTHING is said about the recent schism or +Seneco' resignation. Article has been locked to prevent the truth being told by others. NOT HELPFUL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.210.66 ( talk) 21:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
No....I an interview with the Salt Lake City Newspaper +Seneco made a similar claims of 10,000 people....and that averaged, approximately, 450 people per parish. I am not sure there is a single parish of that size in any Old Catholic group. You will simply continue to lie for Mr Seneco and cover up the truth. I will not feed into your fantasies. Since you 'locked' the article you have done grave damage to wikipedia and I am comfortable having reported that to them and I have provided them the evidence you seek. I wish you and Mr Seneco all the best in your legal problems — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.210.66 ( talk) 16:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
I am just curious - does the 'link' to the NAOCC site constitute a verifiable source or should it be noted as unverified? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.210.66 ( talk) 18:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
And....as usual.....I am told to post in 'Talk' regarding to changes and updates to this article in Wikipedia and I never get any responses to any of my inquiries. It is pretty clear that no one is going to ever allow the truth to be told and will continue to 'hide' behind 'verifiable' source argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.210.66 ( talk) 14:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
The link provided at the end of the article appears to be DEAD...I noted it for the record — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.210.66 ( talk) 03:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
SO....APPARENTLY ITS A BLP VIOLATION TO MENTION THE NAME OF MICHAEL SENECO...BUT NO ONE ELSE? MAY I SUGGEST THAT THIS ARTICLE BE FAIRLY ASSESSED AND A DETERMINATION MADE IF IT REALLY SERVES ANY PURPOSE ANY LONGER? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.210.66 ( talk) 19:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
http://archfraud.blogspot.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.210.66 ( talk) 00:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
...Arch Fraud blog is not a reliable, authoritative source for Wikipedia citation purposes; why can't you get that through your obviously thick skull? If you'll look at the "Welcome" message on my talk page from back when I first posted around here, you'll find links to all the resources you'll need to learn how to properly (and that's the operative word) cite things around here. The Arch Fraud blog doesn't qualify; and so that's why people keep removing, from the NAOCC article, the link to it that you keep stubbornly inserting. While the Arch Fraud blog may or may not contain accurate information, it's, at best, an emotional, one-sided, rant with an obvious ax to grind, just exactly like everything you've been trying to post, and which editors and administrators have removed and then warned you about. Plus, remember that I've communicated with the woman who mounted the Arch Fraud blog, and even she said she should probably take it down and that she probably will; and so if she did, then just look: the citation source would go away and there'd be a dead link in the article. Citation sources need to be enduring, and credible... not built on anger and whim like that Arch Fraud blog.
Additionally, in the case of that Arch Fraud blog, there's another problem: The bishop (Martin) who authorized the inclusion of his private letters and emails to and from Seneco not only had no right to so authorize, but said authorization and disclosure might even be illegal, since it amounts, in effect, to a personnel matter. Moreover -- and this is really the most salient part -- such communications, especially regarding clergy, are just so, so, inherently confidential; and someone who calls himself a bishop should know, intuitively, that such disclosure is so fundamentaly wrong that I, for one, would question whether even the seal of the confessional actually even means anything to him, and/or could ever be relied upon. If a priest's seal of the confessional has no meaning, then he's done. I don't know about you, but Archbishop Dominic Martin has permanently lost credibility with at least me. Also, when I contacted Salvato, one of the other people whose communications where disclosed in the Arch Fraud blog, he didn't even know about it, and was appalled and angered by its disclosures... for the exact same reasons I just cited.
Wikipedia cannot get itself mired down in such shenanigans... shenanigans which, by the way, ever further contribute to the Arch Fraud blog's being unqualified to be a Wikipedia citation source! If you're clergy (which I'm guessing you are, else why would any of this matter so much to you), then how can you not already understand all that without having to have it explained to you like this? What? Are you new or something?
I made a direct contact (via email) with this guy and never got any reponse. He did update his personal page with endless threats against me and others. After claiming to be 'disinterested' he wrote the following comments which indicate he simply does not want to work with me. So we are finished here:
"...BE WARNED: You will never get past the system of checks and balances, here. I, for one, am now "watching" the NAOCC page; and am now notified of every change. I will reverse your changes just minutes to hours after you make them (if they're not per Wikipedia rules); and I have the patience of Job, and will just do it, and do it, and do it, and outlast you, no matter how long you keep it up. So you might as well just stop trying."
So its pretty obvious he does not want to really discuss anything - though he insists on my talk page he does want to work things out. He also seems obcessed with me remaining anonymous ... though I follow all the guidelines as provided. I wish him well ( 76.17.210.66 ( talk) 01:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)).
Today (12 June 2014) the vandalism of the article resumed. This time it was by the user at IP address 68.199.222.78, who posted, at the end of the "History" section, the words...
"The founder, Michael Seneco, was not a priest. He was not an archbishop."
...and then s/he cited, once again, the wholly-unreliable (and so, therefore, not useful for citations on Wikipedia) "ArchFraud" website.
Please read all that has been written on this "talk" page, above, to understand the problem, and why the "ArchFraud" site may not be cited, nor, without proper citation, it may not be said that Seneco was or wasn't either a priest or a bishop.
I have offered, and offered, and offered -- 'til I'm blue in the face, it seems -- to help get this sort of information into the article properly, with Wikipedia-acceptable references; but whomever keeps cowardly doing this vandalism just won't privately contact me (though s/he claimed s/he did, above; but, trust me, that was a lie) so that I may learn what s/he knows, and learn of whom to contact about it, and then try to document it in a Wikipedia-acceptable manner so that it may be placed into the article with proper references. Instead, s/he just keeps vandalizing the article, over and over again, with the same ol' same ol'...
...which I promised, above, I would not allow. So it should not surprise him/her that his/her today's vandalism has been promptly reversed... as promised.
I invite, yet again, the party or parties who keep doing this to please privately contact me (all my contact info is on my user page), in complete confidence, so that what the vandal keeps trying to do may be done properly, per Wikipedia standards. Until and unless that happens, the information that the vandal keeps trying to put into the article simply ain't gonna' stay there. Period.
Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) ( talk) 19:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)