Talk:American Catholic Church in the United States

message: 04/23/2012:
For over one year now I have attempted to update this website with properly cited text which was prepared by our Chancellor, a former Roman Catholic Priest and Franciscan, Very Reverend Christopher Bisett, OFM.  Fr Bisett holds a B.A. degree, a M.Div. degree and a J.D. degree all from appropriately accredited University, Seminary and Law School. 
I have taken due diligence to cite all the references noted in Fr Bisett's text all of which are from third party sources.
If there is any properly noted issues, please contact me directly Jeff359w (talk) 02:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Bp.T.(75.73.56.39) Thank you.  There is mention of his becoming the new auxilary bishop already in the article.  Regarding the other issues you've been trying to post, please see the next sections below regarding those isssues and feel free to discuss them in those sections. Kjnelan (talk) 05:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Angr, should we remove the POV tags on the page?  I was the one who first put up the POV-Check.  If you think it's okay, then I've no problem with removing the NPOV tags... Kjnelan (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. I've left tags indicating the need for sources and the expansion of the history section. +Angr 16:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality?

message: 04/23/2012 (this text was moved to the top of this section).
For over one year now I have attempted to update this website with properly cited text which was prepared by our Chancellor, a former Roman Catholic Priest and Franciscan, Very Reverend Christopher Bisett, OFM. Fr Bisett holds a B.A. degree, a M.Div. degree and a J.D. degree all from appropriately accredited University, Seminary and Law School.
I have taken due diligence to cite all the references noted in Fr Bisett's text all of which are from third party sources.
If there is any properly noted issues, please contact me directlyJeff359w (talk) 02:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: While better sourcing is definitely needed, the article seems pretty well neutral, although the bit about an "informed and enlightened conscience" might be a little bit biased. It's certainly not an advertisement. +Angr 16:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool.  Thanks...  Just checking. Kjnelan (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Religious POV

message: 04/23/2012:
For over one year now I have attempted to update this website with properly cited text which was prepared by our Chancellor, a former Roman Catholic Priest and Franciscan, Very Reverend Christopher Bisett, OFM. Fr Bisett holds a B.A. degree, a M.Div. degree and a J.D. degree all from appropriately accredited University, Seminary and Law School.
I have taken due diligence to cite all the references noted in Fr Bisett's text all of which are from third party sources.
I have personally spoken with and have verified email from Bishop Roy Bauer and I have verified that he indeed did validly ordain Archbishop Harms.  Any other other statements to the contrary should be considered false.
[That would be truly amazing as he has been dead for some years now]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.210.66 (talk) 03:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Also Bp. T., please take responsibility for your words and actions while you're at it.  It's pretty easy to track your IP address and see what you've edited.  It's also easy to reverse IP lookup your IP. Kjnelan (talk) 05:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Jeff359w, you do understand that kjnelan person was trying to protect the ACCUS I hope.  After reading many of his edits and attempts to clean up what appeared to be vandalism, it's pretty obvious he was acting in good faith.  Reading the history of edits for both the talk page and main ACCUS page are quite interesting - and not at all pastoral. 99.185.142.230 (talk) 18:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

text: Actually that's not quite true.  While marriage would not be considered Valid by the CC, Baptism would as anyone can perform a baptism in certain cases and it would still be considered valid.  Reconciliation and Last Rites would still be considered valid as well since they are not viewed with the same litigiousness as say marriage (That's at least 3 sacraments the CC would consider valid).  Even in some cases Ordination would still be valid so long as the ordination itself was celebrated by the book, with the right conditions, and with the proper amount of education.  The "Roman" church would consider the ordination "illicit", but valid none-the-less.  Many Documents have been written on that very thing and are available on the Vatican website.  The question now is how the ACCUS meets the notability guidelines.  The article gives a great overview of the church, but says nothing about being the first Catholic institution to ordain women.  It does not contain anything related to the history and schisms in which it was involved, nor does it discuss any of the liberal theologies to which it subscribes, many of which are considered firsts for the Catholic Church.  While they may not be "roman", they are still "catholic" and many of the things that were done in the ACCUS were firsts for Independent Catholicism, which may enhance notability.  Unfortunately, the ACCUS may not allow some of the information to be released regarding the schisms, history, and those first time event, nor might they release information regarding recent events and mass exodus from their ranks due in part to an independent investigation of information regarding certain individuals.  (kjnelan at a new IP address). 68.32.210.135 (talk) 15:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy

message: This article was discussed in 2012. Since then, there are still no supporting sources to indicate that this particular church is notable according to Wikipedia standards. There were no sources then. They had nearly a decade to become notable. They have not. This is a very small group of 12-13 clergy members and, by all accounts, very few if any non-ordained clergy beyond this. There is simply no reason that this should be a standalone article and not a subset of some other independent catholic article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimOliv (talk • contribs) 00:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be having a significant amount of trouble with the deletion process. If you had simply nominated this article at WP:AFD in the first place, all this circus could have been avoided. Installing WP:Twinkle is the easiest way to use AFD and other parts of Wikipedia; I highly recommend trying it. Elizium23 (talk) 03:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no need to bite a new user. I have nominated the article on his behalf. buidhe 06:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , sorry, I hadn't realized a user with edits dating from 14 years ago could be new, and I regret attempting to give helpful advice about Twinkle because evidently it is too bitey for you. Elizium23 (talk) 06:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: They have barely 100 edits, so clearly haven't been active for 14 years. It's unreasonable to expect new users to be familiar already with the intricate bureaucracy of the deletion process. buidhe 06:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Nominated again for deletion