Talk:Orthodox Roman Catholic Movement

message: I think there are two problems with the following sentence:
Fr. Paul Marceau too had been consecrated a bishop, for he is credited with having performed the consecration of the Church of Our Lady of Fatima at Spring Hills, Florida on its history page; however there is no other confirmation of this.
The problem is with "there is no other confirmation of this". It is not clear what the pronoun "this" is referring to exactly. Is it his personal consecration, the consecration of the Church, or both?
But that is only the minor problem. The phrase should really be omitted entirely. The article should only relate that the Web site says so. That sentence questions the veracity of Terrence Fulham without any cause to question his veracity on this. This should not be done to anyone unless there is some verifiable evidence creating that positive doubt. Hypothetical doubts questioning someone's veracity is purely gratuitous and suspects dishonesty without good cause. (Diligens 10:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understood this to refer to his personal consecration.  Your comment seems to correspond in time to my edits, I hope you aren't accusing me of dishonesty.  The sentence you are referring to has been in this article since the original creation.  If you don't like it, change it.  The sentence appears to be saying that there is no verification that he is a bishop except that on one website, someone of the same name is called a Rt. Rev. Monsignor.   Gimmetrow 15:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Gimmetroy, seeing that you were not the author of the portion "there is no other confirmation of this", my entry has nothing to do with you. I merely have ORCM on my watchlist and when it popped up because of your edit, it caused me to take note of something incidentally that happened to already be there. Whoever put that statement in is really in effect only saying that he personally could find no other confirmation of it, not that no other confirmation exists. The WP rules say a web site is verification, but considering the fact that this site merely mentions him historically in passing from a time when Fulham was not even a priest and had nothing to do with that place, it would seem to warrant a citation template calling for someone to confirm it, or something to that effect. Fulham may have simple heard second hand about it and then posted it. Would you please get to the McKenna discussion and say something further? I appreciate your input there. (Diligens 03:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  exactly! Otherwise, this is WP:OR which is not accepted. I have removed the sentence. Veverve (talk) 10:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  [Untitled] 

message: Shouldn't this be divided into sections? --87.254.65.134 21:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections? 

message: This article states " McKenna himself has become Sedeprivationist from the time of his illicit episcopal consecration" but the article on McKenna states "Although he is sometimes classified as a sedevacantist or a sedeprivationist, McKenna considers himself to be a Roman Catholic bishop just dealing with the Church crisis of the present day." As the whole section "current leadership" where this first statement occurs is not sourced, should this statement be omitted?  Or, if it can be sourced, then the article on McKenna (which is also not sourced) needs to be changed. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bishop McKenna sedeprivationist? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Orthodox Roman Catholic Movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20071004214244/http://www.olfatima.com/history.html to http://www.olfatima.com/history.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: the material in this section contains neither controversy nor dispute.  The titles should be removed 142.163.195.40 (talk) 14:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Thank you for your suggestion. Veverve (talk) 15:16, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy  internal dispute