User talk:Athanasius303

Welcome!

Hello, Athanasius303, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! JHMM13 (T | C) 15:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User name

Your choice of the user name Athanasius is very interesting. You set a high standard for yourself, whereas I am just me. Regarding your education, I do think I know you a bit. Mitch was a close acquaintance of mine for a number of years and Steve was one of the 2 witnesses at my engagement in January of 1981. I know Schuckardt generally wouldn't let his followers go to college. I know in 1981, he told Steve not to finish his degree. Interesting trivia: Schuckardt's last public function at Mt. St. Michaels involved the baptism of my second son Kevin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernie Radecki (talk • contribs)

That is interesting. He did you a good deed, I guess he can't be all rotten can he?

Here is an idea

One thing I don't quite get is why you contest my statement that you beleive Schuckardt is the only living bishop of the church. In the article you quote documentation that states he was consecrated to preserve the Apostolic Sucession and in another part that he is not affiliated with anyone else. I know of no data that demonstrates Schuckardt ever dialoging with other bishops. I assume he thinks he is the only bishop. I know in my CouerdAlene years, the phrase used was "the only true bishop that we know of". If Schuckardt has had his thoughts on this topic published, it would be great to have a link to that in the article. I think the CMRI folks under Pivarunas have an official statement on their view of the current state of affairs in the church. This type of thing is helpful. If Schuckardt has put his thoughts in writing and had them published, it would eliminate me drawing faulty conclusions.

I do think it would be a good idea for you to edit the Sedevacantist article. Bernie Radecki 15:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bishop has always maintained the possibility of there being other true, Catholic bishops. Some of his followers believe otherwise - they are cetainly entitled to their beliefs. Fra. John 3/19/06

Do you have proof that he has always held that postion? Does he have a statement of his view that has been published? Bernie Radecki 21:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a question you have not answered

Why doesn't Schuckardt have a church building where he can have services for his congregation? Bernie Radecki 21:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another question that is a bit off topic. From one of the newscasts out of Seattle, it seems there is a house of church members for women and one for men. Does that have a Catholic precedence? I just naturally wonder why Steve's son wasn't living with Steve and Gloria.

(removal of personal attack)Athanasius303 17:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

The Mediation Cabal

You are a disputant in a case listed under Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases. We invite you to be a mediator in a different case. Please read How do I get a mediator assigned to my case? for more information.
SteveBot (talk) 07:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Fasten 12:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a fairly new policy that may interest you

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not Self-promotion. The arbitration committee ruled on February 17, 2006 that: "Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain NPOV while doing so." [1] Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles, or to articles in which you have a personal stake, is similarly unacceptable.

A critical question for you

I have copied this from the Discussion page of the article on Francis Schuckardt. Please clarify an important matter for the article's sake. You have added text in the article stating that Shuckardt has never said he was a pope. Yet, on this (the artocle's discussion page)page, 2 individuals have stated that he told them that he was. My mother-in-law told me in the early 80s that he was pope. A current sister of the CMRI order at Mt. St. Michaels told me that the mother superior of the CMRI sisters during Schuckardt's days in Spokane was telling others about Schuckardt being mystically crowmed pope. An ex-member from TLRCC in Seattle has recently informed me that she was in a large group of adults who were told by a religious of the TLRCC that Schuckardt was mytically crowned pope. And of course, as stated in the article, Denis Chicoine made this allegation in 1984. Now, Wikipedia policy regarding civility requests that I assume you are working in good faith. So I am trying to reconcile this contradiction. In light of the seriousness of this issue, I would like you to tell me if you feel this is an issue on which you can equivicate. I believe this is very relevant to the article and our continued working to improve the article. Hypothetically, if you knew that Schuckardt claimed in any way to be pope, would you tell the truth about it if asked directly? Bernie Radecki 17:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answered in Francis Schuckardt talk pages. Athanasius303 19:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've been assigned as a mediator for the Francis Schuckardt article. Please go to the mediation page to see my comments. Hope we can all resolve the matter in a civilized fashion. Danny Pi 22:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where I think we are of 4/26

I am posting this on DanilePi's and on Athanasius303's talk page. We are working on three areas and it get al little hard at times to keep it straight

A few proposals have been made on the excummunication topic and DanielPi has weighed in a few times with proposals. I have listed 2 sentences that I agree to that correspond with the mediator's suggestions. So all that is needed is Athanasius303's input.
Regarding the phrase 'Catholic Church', I fear we got out of sync. I did what DanilePi suggested a while ago, but I guess Athanasius303 missed that. So it does turn out he is correct that I did edit the term in the sentence that I attributed to him which I apologize for. There is still an obvious difference of opinion on the term 'Catholic Church'. The good news is that we have a actual instance from the article that highlights the topic. Perhaps DanilPi could take a look at that on the mediation page and re-iterate his opinion. I have added a suggestion there that might be acceptable to all.
DanielPi has added a call for using cited sources. I pushed for this since it seems the only way to prevent controversy. It of course cuts both ways affected both Athanasius303 and me. This topic is awaiting Athanasius303's input. Bernie Radecki 17:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Consecration2.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Consecration2.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Francis Schuckardt

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Francis Schuckardt. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Francis Schuckardt/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Francis Schuckardt/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 02:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Francis Schuckardt

This arbitration case has now closed and the final decision has been published at the link above. --Tony Sidaway 08:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense

Do not accuse me of vandalism. It is not, and I have just grounds for any changes I make. Wikipedia does not belong to you alone.Smith2006 06:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]