This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The Apostolic Catholic Church has more than five million members worldwide, especially in the Philippines, and in areas with large Filipino communities. However, this statistics is just an estimate and yes, we do claim that we are the second largest church in the Philippines. The problem is we are not alone, the Jesus is Lord Church, Philippine Independent Church and Iglesia ni Cristo claims the position as well. As for the complaint that The Apostolic Catholic Church has a House church considered a cathedral in San Jose, California, it is definitely true and we will not post it to our website if it isn't true. The Apostolic Catholic Church is a full pledged member of The National Council of Churches in the Philippines and along with other churches, it has enough notability and strong standing that's why it was accepted as a member. House churches within the Apostolic Catholic Church can be considered a Cathedral if our Patriarch puts or appoints a Bishop there. It is clear that the Apostolic Catholic Church is an autocephalous, schismstic and protestant church that's why it has the right to establish its own theologies and agendas as well as standard in the hierarchy of our church buildings. To further verify this informations, you may contact the National Council of Churches in The Philippines or log on to their website at  or the Apostolic Catholic Church clergies or at our own website at . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toshikazu2009 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)Toshikazu2009 (talk) 12:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
The article starts off at the beginning with line after line of "point of view" statements about proper dress and conduct, which is not universally agreed upon. --Eddylyons (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. This article has not improved. It needs a complete rewrite with references, or a deletion. I propose that it be nominated for deletion again, as it is not a source of any actual information, let alone accurate or verifiable information (due to the dearth of references), and is written like an apologetic advertisement with not a single sentence that isn't POV-pushing: no actual knowledge is lost by deleting something in such a state. JohnChrysostom (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC
If there are no objections, pursuant to the recent AfD (many !voters spoke to the effect of, "Better to leave a stub than to delete"), I am going to cut this article back to the lead and infobox alone, and look through anything else in the article that's possibly salvageable. If someone wants to work on it, move it to your userspace, as the article, as written, should not be on public Wikipedia in this state. Nothing else in the article is even close to properly cited, and the lead is poorly cited itself. Such will be done in 3 days, pending objections. St John Chrysostomview/my bias 23:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
There's some sort of revert battle going on here. The article was chopped to about 3,000 bytes, built up carefully to 4,000 bytes, reverted to its huge and uncited size, reverted to 4,000 bytes, and then just today, reverted to 14,000+ bytes. The 14,000+ byte version is full of poor writing with lots of unverified assertions. I'm not getting in the middle of this one, but it should probably go back to the January 28, 2013 version. Jonesey95 (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, so I went ahead and restored that version. —Torchiesttalkedits 01:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)