Fr. Bryan Clayton, formerly of the Society of the Virgin Mary (SVM), as of December 24, 2011 has styled himself Pope Athanasius I:

http://www.trueromancatholic.com/

He says he's the first pope since Pope Leo XIII. According to him Pope Pius X was not a true pope, but not because of actual heresy (which would cause him to lose his office), but because on November 1, 1911 he changed the breviary.

I think he was ordained and consecrated by either Bishop Patrick Taylor or Bishop Thom Sebastian (SSCK).

Bishop Taylor derives his orders from the Orthodox.

Bishop Sebastian derives his orders from (I think) the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church.

Both of them became "independent" bishops, but then Bishop Sebastian joined the Novus Ordo.

I think he was ordained and consecrated by either Bishop Patrick Taylor or Bishop Thom Sebastian (SSCK).

Bishop Taylor derives his orders from the Orthodox.

Bishop Sebastian derives his orders from (I think) the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church.

Both of them became "independent" bishops, but then Bishop Sebastian joined the Novus Ordo.

He is insane or a charlatan or both.

His bogus papacy is from  :devil2:

He is a :heretic:

The craziness never seems to end.

Yes Fr. Clayton is insane and a heretic for self-proclaiming himself as the Bishop of Rome.

Here's the background on his prelate, Bishop Patrick Taylor.

Bishop Patrick Taylor was born and raised a Roman Catholic.  He became dissatisfied with the changes of Vatican II and became an Orthodox priest.  He later returned to the True Faith after being advised by an independent traditional Catholic bishop.

When he returned to the True Faith, he was already a validly ordained priest. He received episcopal ordination from Archbishop Michael Boucher, whose episcopal lineage is Old Catholic and Eastern Orthodox and recognized as valid because it was personally investigated by the late Cardinal Edouard Gagnon.

One of the co-consecrators of Bishop Taylor was Archbishop Denis Garrison, an Eastern Orthodox bishop whose lineage is recognized by the Archdiocese of New York beginning with Cardinal Francis Spellman (1965) and later by Cardinal Terrence Cooke (1967).  

Though his episcopal lineage was recognized before and after Vatican II, Bishop Taylor sought conditional episcopal ordination in 2001 from Bishop Merril Adamson.  Bishop Adamson is a Thuc-line whose lineage is from Bishop Christian Datessen, a Thuc-line bishop living in France.

Bishop Taylor's validity was recently defended by Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy, a former SSPX seminary professor and one of the original members of the Society of St. Pius V (SSPV).  

I personally talked to Bishop Taylor on the telephone.  He was consecrated with the Traditional Rite of Episcopal Consecration.  He uses an English translation of the Traditional Rite to confer Holy Orders.  The Vatican to this day has a record of him, listing him as a bishop because the Holy See has kept records of independent bishops since the 1950s.

I want to point out the reason I posted this in case it wasn't clear. It's not because there's a somewhat well-known priest falsely claiming to be pope; that's nothing new. Nor is it because there's a man arguing that Pius X is an antipope; that's not new either. It's because he's actually arguing that the Breviary is infallible and that to alter it would cause a pope to lose his office. As if the Breviary were on par with the Council of Trent.

He is a lunatic or charlatan or both.

What I can't understand is how anyone else can accept his madness of his and follow him whilst still thinking they are somehow maintaining their Catholicity.

Yes Fr. Clayton is insane and a heretic for self-proclaiming himself as the Bishop of Rome.

Here's the background on his prelate, Bishop Patrick Taylor.

Bishop Patrick Taylor was born and raised a Roman Catholic.  He became dissatisfied with the changes of Vatican II and became an Orthodox priest.  He later returned to the True Faith after being advised by an independent traditional Catholic bishop.

When he returned to the True Faith, he was already a validly ordained priest. He received episcopal ordination from Archbishop Michael Boucher, whose episcopal lineage is Old Catholic and Eastern Orthodox and recognized as valid because it was personally investigated by the late Cardinal Edouard Gagnon.

One of the co-consecrators of Bishop Taylor was Archbishop Denis Garrison, an Eastern Orthodox bishop whose lineage is recognized by the Archdiocese of New York beginning with Cardinal Francis Spellman (1965) and later by Cardinal Terrence Cooke (1967).  

Though his episcopal lineage was recognized before and after Vatican II, Bishop Taylor sought conditional episcopal ordination in 2001 from Bishop Merril Adamson.  Bishop Adamson is a Thuc-line whose lineage is from Bishop Christian Datessen, a Thuc-line bishop living in France.

Bishop Taylor's validity was recently defended by Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy, a former SSPX seminary professor and one of the original members of the Society of St. Pius V (SSPV).  

I personally talked to Bishop Taylor on the telephone.  He was consecrated with the Traditional Rite of Episcopal Consecration.  He uses an English translation of the Traditional Rite to confer Holy Orders.  The Vatican to this day has a record of him, listing him as a bishop because the Holy See has kept records of independent bishops since the 1950s.

Valid or not, why would anyone want to get involved with these people?  They're capable of anything - except, apparently, Catholicism.   His 'lineage is recognized' is intended to give legitimacy where there is none.  These people are only slightly more "Catholic" than 'smells and bells' Anglicans.

Quote from: Roman Catholic

Quote from: Augustinian

I want to point out the reason I posted this in case it wasn't clear. It's not because there's a somewhat well-known priest falsely claiming to be pope; that's nothing new. Nor is it because there's a man arguing that Pius X is an antipope; that's not new either. It's because he's actually arguing that the Breviary is infallible and that to alter it would cause a pope to lose his office. As if the Breviary were on par with the Council of Trent.

He is a lunatic or charlatan or both.

What I can't understand is how anyone else can accept his madness of his and follow him whilst still thinking they are somehow maintaining their Catholicity.

Does anyone else accept it?  He says that people voted for him to be "Pope", but is there any actual evidence of this?

Why do you guys even comment on this nonsense?