Talk:Orthodox Roman Catholic Movement

Catholicism Low‑importance

Orthodox Roman Catholic Movement is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Catholicism task list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : see Draft articles
Assess : see Category:Unassessed Catholicism articles; Category:Unknown-importance Catholicism articles
Cleanup : Blessed Virgin Mary (see the talk page)
Collaborate : Invitation template needed, see Category:WikiProject invitation templates
Copyedit : Cuthbert Tunstall
Expand : Angelus; Roman Catholicism in Kosovo; Bishop Adolph John Paschang; Cum sæpe accidere; Altar Society; American Board of Catholic Missions; Bernard Häring
NPOV : Americanism (heresy); Ensoulment
Photo : see Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of Catholicism
Stubs : see Category:Stub-Class Catholicism articles; Category:Catholic Church stubs
Update : Peer review; John Aloysius Maguire
Verify : Archdiocese of Glasgow; Archbishop of Westminster; Bishop; Saint Mungo; Sanctification; Westminster Cathedral
Other : Watch recent changes for Catholicism articles

[Untitled]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

The phrase should really be omitted entirely. The article should only relate that the Web site says: exactly! Otherwise, this is WP:OR which is not accepted. I have removed the sentence. Veverve (talk) 10:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sections?

Shouldn't this be divided into sections? --87.254.65.134 21:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop McKenna sedeprivationist?

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)[reply]

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy internal dispute

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)[reply]

Done. Thank you for your suggestion. Veverve (talk) 15:16, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]