Talk:North American Old Catholic Church

Inappropriate tone

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. —Angr 07:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion the article still has to be rewritten, as it seems to be in favor of the NAOCC. --Usquam (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I am a former member of the NAOCC. I edited and rewrote several areas to remove the pro-NAOCC bias. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a classified ad, and I did my best to maintain the neutrality of the page. --JTheophilos (talk) 14:37, 03 April 2012 (UTC)

Roman Catholicism

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)

Seneco's resignation

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)

Please provide a verifiable source that backs up that assertion so it can be added to the article. Also, please stop adding {{vc}} tags in inappropriate places. Angr (talk) 20:42, 22 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)

I haven't removed any references to Mr Seneco that might viewed as negative. I removed several misplaced {{vc}} tags and an unsourced claim that Seneco has resigned. If you will stop yelling and provide a reliable source for the resignation here on the talk page, I will unprotect the page so you can add it. But don't keep throwing {{vc}} tags around indiscriminately; use them only for sources that may be actually be unreliable—which doesn't include vatican.va or the Code of Canon Law. Angr (talk) 20:58, 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)

As the NAOCC's former "National Chancellor", I can state that Seneco had a habit of referring to nursing home volunteers as "parishes" and counting all residents therein as church members. Most who attended "Mass" at such facilities assumed the "priest" was Roman Catholic and nothing was ever done to disabuse them of this notion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.27.199 (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits

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)

As I said above, if you have reliable sources to make your assertions verifiable, add them here on the talk page and I will unlock the article so you can add them. Angr (talk) 21:09, 25 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)

EXTERNAL LINKS

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)

NO RESPONSE

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)

DEAD LINK

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)

BLP VIOLATION REMOVAL

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)

It is a clear BLP violation to include any controversial and possibly libelous information in an article or talk page about a living person which is not adequately referenced. Any such information must be immediately removed without discussion. See WP:BLPSOURCES for information on the policies. Anglicanus (talk) 10:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

While the previous accusations were indeed unverified, certainly some reason should be given in the article for Seneco's sudden de-activation of the "church". Otherwise, this article appears to be without purpose, with the NAOCC exposed as one man's fantasy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.27.199 (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

These "independent Catholic churches" are a dime a dozen. I doubt that anyone actually cares about what has happened to it. Anglicanus (talk) 08:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Not true, I dare say, Anglicanus... though I completely understand both how and why you wrote what you wrote. Yes, it's true that the both "independent" and "Old" Catholic churches, which have no real connection with either Rome or Utrecht, and which are barely more than a sham, are... well... fine, to use your words, "a dime a dozen." But so are so-called "continuing Anglican" churches out there -- autocephalous, to the last of them -- so let's be fair.

And, yes, even worse, many of them consist of little more than a self-appointed "bishop" or two, who seem to "get off" on the vestments; and who are the very definition -- even if their ordination into apostolic succession is valid (but "irregular") -- of the pajorative sense of the term Episcopi vagantes. For the easily most egregious example of it, Google a wackjob (and public figure, so nothing here is libelous) who calls himself "Chief Alexander Swift Eagle Justice", who's a notorious degree mill operator, and who pathologically bills himself as, "D.D., Ph.D., J.D. (trust me, he's not a lawyer) - Theologian, Academician; Metropolitan/Archbishop and Member of the Imperial Holy Orthodox Synod of the Holy Orthodox Church of All Russia and Appointed Chief Patriarch for United States of America - California, Mexico and for ALL Latin American Countries; Metropolitan/Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Native Americans and President of the College of Bishops of the Mexican National Catholic Church (the real Mexican National Catholic Church disavows him, for whatever that's worth); Metropolitan/Archbishop of the Holy Orthodox Native American Catholic Archdiocese and Chief Patriarch of the Holy Synod of Bishops of the Holy Orthodox Native American Catholic Church; Bishop of The National Pentecostal Overcoming Churches of the World Inc." Note in his photo, both that his vestments are home made from what at least appears to be cardboard and gift-wrapping paper; and that his Crosier is a curtain rod from Walmart.

And so, you're right, no one actually cares about such as him and his abject ridiculousness; and there is no shortage of others like him -- at least to varying degrees -- out there; and who, then, give the autocephalous movement a bad name. However, real independent and "Old" Catholic churches -- and "continuing" and other forms of "Anglican" ones, too -- initially form because the body either from which they came, or of which they cannot become a member, is either too conservative for them, or not conservative enough. Many churches, lately, have spun-off from, for example, both the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) or the US's official Anglican body, the Episcopal Church in the United States (ECUSA) over the ELCA LGBTQ clergy and ECUSA LGBTQ clergy, respectively; and, now, same-sex-marriage) issue(s), too. Many ELCA Lutheran chuches spun off even before the LGBTQ and same-sex marriage issues because of the ELCA's "Called to Common Mission" agreement with ECUSA; and between that and the more recent LGBT clergy and same-sex marriage issues, many of those churches have now formed the new (and quite conservative) North American Lutheran Church (NALC) (an eventuality that I'm proud to say I predicted even before the three bodies -- two of them conservative; I was a member of the liberal one -- joined to form the ELCA back in 1987... but now I digress... sorry). Recently-spun-off ECUSA churches (riled, mostly, over Bishop Gene Robinson and, though he's now retired, all that his being gay and nevertheless still able to become an ECUSA bishop portends) had, in order to maintain their affiliation with the Anglican Communion, initially sought membership in the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone of America, but have since affiliated with various -- usually very conservative -- official Anglican bodies in Africa.

Those who have long despised Roman Catholic polity -- and, especially, papism and papal infallibility, among other issues -- yet who adore all (or at least most) other aspects of the Roman Catholic church, have been calling themselves Utrecht-affiliated "Old Catholic" in the US since 1908; and, before that, internationally, affiliated with Utrecht since 1853. Sadly, not a single so-called "Old Catholic" church in the US -- not even the Polish National Catholic Church (PNCC), anymore -- have any affiliation with Utrecht, yet most of them (though not PNCC) misleadingly claim it, as did the North American Old Catholic Church (NAOCC)... which I, for one, despise; and which misleading claim contributes to such churches' inherent lack of credibility. And though a more recent "Independent Catholic" movement has also formed, and is also legitimate, it, too, has its share of pathology. There have been some recent attempts at legitimate US Old Catholic affiliation with Utrecht, but nothing, so far, is very hopeful; and in my opinion, at least, it's pointless.

Another kind of legitimate spin-off, though, stems from more mainline bodies -- despite their being too liberal for the conservatives which have spun-off, as described above -- not adequately embracing the LGBTQ membership, clergy and same-sex marriage issues. Many so-called "Old Catholic" and "Independent Catholic" churches -- including NAOCC -- formed nearly entirely because mainline bodies were not (and still don't) adequately embrace LGBTQ issues; and/or because they're still arguing over it, and so, then, are still making LGBTQ persons seeking membership, clergy positions, or same-sex marriage ceremonies very uncomfortable. Very few of such largely LGBTQ-oriented spin-off churches have managed to achieve the kind of growth and success for which they had originally hoped and planned. NAOCC, though, at 22 member churches before it finally fell apart, had begun to achieve success, indeed... all of it, like it or not, under the nearly sole leadership of Michael Seneco. Those factors, as described in this paragraph, alone, easily earn NAOCC sufficient notability, by Wikipedia standards, to warrant its having a Wikipedia article both during and, now, after its existence. Moreover, the LGBTQ connection, and Seneco, and whatever caused the unexpected demise of NAOCC (which I'm beginning to learn had less to do with any alleged ordination of pedophiles as it did with legitimate questions of whether Seneco was ever really ordained into valid -- even if "irregular," by Roman Catholic standards -- apostolic succession... along with allegations of his promiscuity and other factors; I'm still researching it). In NOACC's case, many of its 22 churches appear to now be part of The Progressive Episcopal Church, which is probably also now sufficiently noteworthy, by Wikipedia standards, to have its own article, here.

DISCLOSURE: I have no skin in any of this. I've never been a member of any of these churches (except the ELCA; but certainly none of the spin-offs), including NOACC. Though I admit to knowing Michael Seneco (solely by phone and email), and having discussions with him about everything from his church's formation, to his bishops' consecration, to his priests' ordination, to his (now-alleged, I now realize; but just assumed was valid backk then) apostolic succession, to his career as a first responder, to his own church and ministry, etc.; and though I did, back in May of 2012 when I was unaware of any problems in NAOCC, defend it in comments beneath a Salt Lake City, Utah newspaper article; and though he invited me to the national meeting described in said article as part of his since-2003 courting of me to ordain me, I nevertheless have had an only arms-length relationship with NOACC, nearly entirely in the form of since-2003 occasional communications with Seneco by phone and/or email. That's it. In the end, ironically, the coolest (as in most distant; not warm) conversation I had with him was not too awfully long before NAOCC fell apart, during which conversation he brought-up his apparently long-standing concern about my anti-degree/diploma-mill activism, and my various related writings which he felt suggest that unaccredited schools should be considered suspect... to which he added that all of his degrees are unaccredited; and that, clearly, concerned him (never mind that I had earlier helped him to credibly and ethically write his NAOCC's St. Wolbodo Seminary's accreditation page precisely so that it would be credible, despite its lack of accreditation). I'm now, in retrospect, certain that Seneco was aware, by then, of the troubles on his horizon, which I could sense from him, but which I could not figure out until NOACC finally fell apart and I started to research things a little. Though he did not mention it in that conversation, he also wondered, once, if I'd be happy, as a straight person, being ordained into a largely LGBT-oriented church; but who knows whether that still concerned him by the most recent conversation. Since NAOCC has closed, I have reached-out to Seneco to discuss it all, and he responded; but once he understood what I wanted to talk about, he fell silent.

I have watched, with interest, the NOACC Wikipedia page over the years; and have always been irritated by NOACC's claim of Utrecht affiliation (perhaps it was my having once shared that with Seneco which also cooled him to me... who knows). Since NOACC's demise, though, it has gotten particularly interesting... as have the comments here, on this "Talk" page; and I have been especially curious about the persons who post, here, using only IP addresses, and whatever ax it is that they have to grind. I reached-out to one of them -- a complete copy of which is on my own talk page, here -- and as can be seen in that reach out, I'm none too happy about what's happened to the NOACC wikipedia page, and how the actually private problems of its members with Mr. Seneco are playing-out here. What the NAOCC was all about, its history, what it did and/or did not achieve, and how and why it fell are all relevant; as is the now-former church's place in the whole Old Catholic master scheme of things. I'm angry with myself for not removing from the article, long ago, that it was Utrecht affiliated... and I suspect -- nay, confess -- that I might not have because I probably knew it would likely terminate any communication I had with Seneco. But that happened, anyway, probably because he finally figured-out that I'm all about truth and transparency.... something which it now appears he feared.

In any case, I, for one, would like to see the hysteria on the part of some, here, to cease (as it has, of late, I realize; but I'd like to see it stay that way, even if this article comes alive again); and then I'd like to see the NOACC page improved in a more permanent way, pursuant to Wikipedia policy, and in a manner which self-evidences its notability, for posterity, as it really does deserve. Hopefully, at least one thing that has happened, here, between Anglicanus's comments, and mine, is that our IP-only poster(s), here, have finally come to realize how things work around here; and that we can't just shoot-from-the-hip with our remarks and allegations. It matters not whether you know it to be true; all that matters is that you can document it with proper references which conform to Wikipedia standards! It all must be independently and credibly referenceable, and I just don't know how much more clear I could be in my invitation to those who think they know things to get in touch with me so I can go about the task of updating this article properly... alas.

Anyone reading this who would like to help me, by providing accurate information which may be cited as references, per Wikipedia policy (or, absent that, un-citable information which I can then use to find citable references), should contact me either on my Wikipeida "Talk" page, or using the contact information found on my "User" page. Let's see if we can turn this whole unfortunate situation into something Wikipedia-worthy. I invite, again, the parties posting here to contact me so I can figure out what's true and what's not; and then how to credibly cite it here so that the whole truth may be known.

Readers, here, should also see the "Talk" page of the user at IP 76.18.210.66 for the dialog we're having there about all this. It's also on my own "Talk" page.
Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 05:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Alternative Website that tells more:

http://archfraud.blogspot.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.210.66 (talk) 00:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, user at at IP 76.17.210.66 (who refuses to sign his/her posts, despite being gabazillions-of-times asked), you keep trying to add that to the bottom of the NAOCC article; and I see from its history that you wisely thought better of it and reversed your having so done on October 14th. Good for you. And the reason, as I explain to you in the dialog that you and I are having about all this on both your "Talk" page, and mine, as well, and part of which I now quote, immediately below, is because the...

...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?

In that discussion on your "Talk" page, I further explain to you why Wikipedia's rules are so important; and why you're being so disrespected around here because you have such disdain for them. I also explain why those rules are so important; and how they keep this place and its articles accurate and credible, despite that anyone can edit them; and I cite the oozing-with-credibility Nature magazine's 2005 study which showed Wikipedia to be, by hook or by crook, as accurate and reliable as the venerable Encyclopaedia Britannica.

And I explained much more there. You really need to read what I wrote on your "Talk" page, and please, at long last, both understand it, and take it seriously, and then change your behavior around here, because its like a bull in a china shop.

As long as I have your attention, here, I'll also now reiterate the warning I gave you in said dialog on yours and my "Talk" pages, to wit: 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.

Having written that, I also now reiterate my multiple-times-made offer: Contact me (privately, of course; my contact info is on my user page) and I will keep your identity in confidence; and then you can please tell me whatever you know or think you know, even if unsourced, so that I can then go find legitimate and Wikipedia-acceptable sources; and then I, rather than you (because you refuse to understand how it's done), can come back here and add whatever you're trying to add, but in a manner acceptable to Wikipedia. And please stop accusing me of participating in an alleged NAOCC/Seneco "cover-up," around here (simply on account of that I'm one of the ones, here, demanding that you follow Wikipedia rules, and not allowing you to just flaunt them), because the very nature of that offer I'm making is facially antithetical to such "cover-up" nonsense.

Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 01:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms)

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)).

Gregg DesElms's response

You, user at IP 76.17.210.66, wrote that you made direct email contact with me. That is a lie. Either that or your email message was wrongly routed to my spam filter. I've gone all the way back to the beginning of September 2013 in my email inbox and there is nothing there from you. Nothing. Of course, I don't know who you are (or what you put in the "Subject:" field of the email, so it's a little hard to know what to look for. Or did you send it before September of 2013? If you intentionally disguised it by putting something completely unrelated to all this in the "Subject:" field (so that you could come back here and make this posting, perhaps; you're so provably and demonstrably manipulative that anything's possible), then, who knows, maybe it's actually there, but I just didn't know how to recognize it. What what in the "Subject:" field?

Please, in any case, re-send it. If you really would like to reach out to me (something about which I'm dubious, by the way), then please do so... er... but... you know... for real this time. If you write, here, that you either will or have, then I will keep a closer eye on both my inbox and spam filter; and then once I see your email address, I'll be sure to whitelist it so nothing from you can end-up in the spam filter again (assuming that's what even happened to it before).

Interestingly, there's also no message in my email inbox back on 25 October 2013 telling me that you added this section to this page, either; and I just verified that I'm "watching" this page. So that's also odd; and not your fault, obviously. I certainly get all my other notifications from Wikipedia. Hmm. I wonder if something was going on with my spam filter back then and it ended-up gobbling-up more than it should have. If so, then that's obviously on me, and not you. But since nothing like that has ever happened before, I'm not sure what to believe.

One thing that you may believe, though -- and take to the bank, in fact -- is that if I had gotten a private email from you, I would not have ignored it. Likewise, if I had gotten an email telling me about this that you've here written, I wouldn't have just let it sit. I just happened to think of this article today, and wondered if there was anything new, and came here to find what you've written, to which I'm now responding.

In any case, if you had actually written to me, and if you had been candid in it, and actually tried to help me to get at the truth of everything, who knows: we might even be friends by now.

YOU WROTE: He did update his personal page with endless threats against me and others.

MY RESPONSE: There were no threats against anyone, not even you. And I only wrote about you, no one else. And what I wrote was a warning, not a threat. It was even labeled a warning. If you found a fair warning threatening, then that speaks volumes about both you, and what you think is going one, here (as if we hadn't already figured it out after watching your abominable behavior, here).

I simply warned you what I would do if you kept-up said abominable behavior. Your use of "threat," though, to describe it... yes... very telling, indeed. If you were clergy in Seneco's church, then he obviously wasn't requiring a psych exam of said clergy. Either that, or you're one of those people who can pass one, even though you're nuts (that is, assuming you're nuts; which I'm assuming).

YOU WROTE: After claiming to be 'disinterested' he wrote the following comments which indicate he simply does not want to work with me.

MY RESPONSE: You understand what "disinterested" means, right? You've got a dictionary handy, do you? I meant that I have no skin in the game of Seneco's church. I was never a member, never ordained, etc. I don't even know exactly what happened which caused the demise of the church. The blog to which you kept trying to link in the article suggests it was because his ordination was discovered to have been faked; and whether or not that's true, I don't know. If you and I had been working together before now, instead of all this silliness, I'd probably have gotten completely to the bottom of it by now. In any case, I am, then, a disinterested party. It didn't mean that I'm not interested in any of this. You have a college education, right? 'Cause it's hard to tell.

As far as your "[h]e also seems obcessed [sic] with me remaining anonymous," gimmee a feakin' break! It should be self-evident what's wrong with doing anything in life (except maybe engaging in speech for which you'd be punished by the government or something, as our founding fathers did when they pamphleteered and posted bills) anonymously. How can anyone hold you responsible for your actions if no one knows who you are? I want to be accountable. I take responsibility for what I do in life. That's why I've used only my own real name, in the real world, in every single thing I've ever done on the Internet, dating back to the 1980s. By posting anonymously, you're not taking responsibility for anything. Nothing. Everything you've done here has been like a drive-by shooting. Shame on you!

That said, if you really had emailed me (or, now that you know I never got it... that is, if you even sent anything; and so if you re-sent it), and if you volunteered in it who you are (and trusted, as you may positively trust, despite our rankor, here, that I would not here or anywhere else disclose it), then that, obivously, would be you stepping-up and being willing to be accountable, even if only to me. At least then I could report here that you had done that, and that we were working together to finally get to the truth of all this, and get it properly into the article; and at that point you'd have more credibility in the minds of readers, here; yet you'd still be protected from whomever you fear which makes you post anonymously, here.

You wrote, "I wish him well." My response: Yeah... right. You, me and God all know you didn't mean that! As my ol' man used to say, please don't pee on my leg and then tell me it's raining.

Now, if you really wrote to me, and you were really serious back then, then fine: let's rewind back to that point and try again. Tell me, here, that you re-sent the email; and, trust me, I'll not miss it this time (that is, assuming I even missed it the alleged first time). Let's do this. Or am I right in my suspicion that you've just made all this up?

Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 03:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

And the vandlism resumes

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)