So Orthodox Christians know of the fakes out there. Maybe you don't care, but others might. Lose the attitude.
The attitude that Michal expresses is probably pretty much prevalent here, and would likely be the same at ByzCath, and for good reason. The UAOC-C, the "-C" notwithstanding, is, at best, a 'non-canonical' Church, at worst, a vagante ecclesia
, depending on one's definition of each and who is applying or interpreting the respective definitions. In either case, but particularly the latter, the ecclesiastical landscape is replete with similar examples and, as most knowledgeable EO/OO and EC/OC are aware of which Churches, hierarchs, parishes, etc are 'legit' and which are not, the misadventures of a particular individual in a Church that is not 'legit' are of small consequence and less interest.
Were Kirkland being received into a canonical Church, Orthodox or Catholic - as he apparently was, albeit briefly, into the Melkite Eparchy - the reaction might very well be different, as it would be a mistake of which members of the Church in question should be made aware (although, in such an instance, the better and more useful course of action would be to bring the information directly to the attention of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction's ruling hierarch, so it could be swiftly acted upon).
You can find myriad discussions here about vagante ecclesia
and vagante episcopi
, but in almost every instance these came about because either an establsihed member or, more frequently, a newbie inquirer came across an 'Orthodox' or 'Catholic' or 'Orthodox Catholic' or 'Catholic Orthodox' church, bishop, or presbyter, and wanted to verify its or his pedigree. There's little interest in threads that just serve to announce the existence of what's out there.
We're all aware that vesture is readily available in this day and age and, combined with a lazy-boy recliner to serve as throne, and a garage or rec room to serve as one's cathedral, one can be patriarch or patriarchess, metropolitan or metropolitana, archbishop or archbishopess, however one chooses to style oneself. Thanks to the online efforts of Al Green - focused on 'Orthodox' vagante
, Terry Boyle - who has done likewise for 'Catholic' vagante
, and Terry Begonja - whose subjects span the two and reach out into vagante
of the other High Churches, much information is readily available and is significantly more accessible than when resources were limited to the, not always easily secured, written works of Peter Anson, Karl Pruter, and Bertil Perrson.
Thus, there is little call in fora for 'outing' that doesn't serve the purpose of answering a query. I could post 20 or 30 threads a day, for a month, each focusing on a single vagante
, 'independent', non-canonical, Old Calendrist Orthodox, or Old Catholic-type hierarch and neither exhaust the genre nor the lists that I maintain for ready reference - but it would serve no useful nor valid purpose.[Paragraph removed due to privacy concerns, even though you were defending the need for documentation -- Fr. Anastasios]
So, I suggest that you understand the lack of enthusiasm for the topic as you've approached it. Neither this site nor ByzCath are clearinghouses for airing ecclesiastical oddities outside the need to do so.
Do folks wander into these pseudo-churches blissfully unaware of what they've encountered? They certainly do. Do random threads directed at exposing such serve a useful purpose in stemming the tide of such? No, they don't.
So, save your fingers and wait for someone to pass through and ask. And, in time, someone will. On such an occasion, what you might know could very likely be welcome information. In the meantime, Michal's comment is pretty much on-point.