Well that's convenient for you, isn't it?

Since all Catholics must obey the Pope, then it's imperative that you elect one, so that you have someone to obey, since you go on so about us having to obey "our" pope.

I think it's required that you have "your" pope. You can elect anyone. How about someone at your chapel? Or maybe a family member? Then you can obey him in EVERYTHING but sin, just like you tell us that we have to do. Doesn't that sound fair?

No, it’s not convenient it’s just a fact and facts matter. If there was a true pope I would be the first to *gladly* submit to him and kiss his feet. Now, please explain why you don’t obey and submit to your pope, Bergoglio?

The next real Pope we will see will come from the fulfillment of the Holy Pope and Great Monarch prophecy.

  Angelus, how can you believe this, yet also believe "Francis" is the antichrist?  What you said above, is 100% contradictory of the antichrist arriving in the next 40 years.  

Because the majority of Church Fathers talk about the rise of the 3rd and Final Holy Roman Empire (i.e. Great Monarch/Holy Pope) BEFORE the coming of the antichrist.  They say that the whole world will be Catholic (which has never happened before in history), and then, after the death of such holy leaders, the world is split into 10 kingdoms (which corresponds to the Apocalypse), and the antichrist arises at a young age, who wins battles between these 10 kings, and seduces 7 of them to his side.

There is no talk of a "holy monarch" in the days AFTER antichrist, or during.  Because the antichrist takes all the power.

So, logically, and as many prophecies (and Church Fathers explain) such a period of renewal, where a Holy Monarch/Holy Pope would gain power is BEFORE antichrist.

Because the majority of Church Fathers talk about the rise of the 3rd and Final Holy Roman Empire (i.e. Great Monarch/Holy Pope) BEFORE the coming of the antichrist.  They say that the whole world will be Catholic (which has never happened before in history), and then, after the death of such holy leaders, the world is split into 10 kingdoms (which corresponds to the Apocalypse), and the antichrist arises at a young age, who wins battles between these 10 kings, and seduces 7 of them to his side.

There is no talk of a "holy monarch" in the days AFTER antichrist, or during.  Because the antichrist takes all the power.

So, logically, and as many prophecies (and Church Fathers explain) such a period of renewal, where a Holy Monarch/Holy Pope would gain power is BEFORE antichrist.

Could you provide the actual source material, so that I can understand where you get your ideas. I will now try to explain what I think will happen.

Here is what St. Thomas, following the Church Fathers, says about the final "Roman Empire" before the coming of Antichrist:

34. First comes the revolt, which is explained in many different ways in the Gloss. And first it is explained as a revolt from faith, because later the faith would be accepted by the whole world. And this Gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world (Matt 24:14). Therefore this comes before what according to Augustine has not yet been fulfilled, and afterwards many will depart from the faith, etc. In the last times certain men will depart from the faith (1 Tim 4:1). The love of many will grow cold (Matt 24:12).

Or a revolt from the Roman empire, to which the whole world was subject. And Augustine says that this is represented in Daniel by the statues (Dan 2:31), where four kingdoms are named after whom comes Christ, and that this was a fitting sign because the Roman empire was strengthened for this very purpose, namely that under its power the faith should be preached throughout the whole world.

35. But how can this be, since the nations have already withdrawn themselves from the Roman empire and yet the Antichrist has still not come?

The answer is that it is not over yet, but has changed from a temporal revolt into a spiritual revolt, as Pope Leo says in a sermon about the apostles. And so one should say that the revolt from the Roman empire should be understood not only as a revolt from the temporal but from the spiritual empire, namely from the catholic faith of the Roman church. And it is fitting that, as Christ came when the Roman empire held sway over all, so conversely a sign of the Antichrist is revolt against it.

Below is my interpretation. You are welcome to disagree. 

This "final Roman Empire" is a spiritual empire, i.e. the Roman Catholic Church, as Pope Leo says above. The revolt will be the revolt against the true Catholic doctrine. The seeds of that revolt started to grow after VII and will come to full fruition with the Synod on Synodality.

The Holy Pope and Great Monarch events (which include "the Warning" and the short period of peace) will happen in the midst of the 3.5 year period, probably after the Antichrist definitively reveals himself as such.

Prior to this definitive revelation, the person who will later be understood to be the Antichrist is an Antipope (the False Prophet) laying the groundwork for the final revolt. So Antipope/False Prophet morphs into the Antichrist. They are not two different people. It is the same person before and after the final "revolt." The model for the Antichrist is Judas Iscariot. One day he is an Apostle (a false apostle). The next day he is selling out Jesus (Antichrist).

Those who respond properly to the Warning will ultimately be saved. Those who choose to, instead, follow Antichrist, because of the "operation of error," will become little copy-cat "antichrists" and will lose their souls.

The ten horns, or kings, are simply Cardinals/Bishops of the Counterfeit Catholic Church. They are "in the Beast," according to Apoc. 17:16, and "these shall hate the harlot, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and shall burn her with fire." These bishops are the people who will carry out the edicts of the Synod on Synodality and lead the Harlot (false Catholics) into the Abyss.

https://www.cathinfo.com/art-and-literature-for-catholics/ratton-commentary-on-apocalypse/msg888331/#msg888331

Yes, I'm familiar with some of those. You have to understand they are allegorical/metaphorical riddles. You cannot take them literally. Marie-Julie Jahenny (and others) discuss these same themes in much more detail.

The basic sequence remains the same: Revolt/Apostasy --> Holy Pope/Short Period of Peace --> Reign of the Antichrist

And all of that stuff is primarily concerned with things going on in the Roman Catholic Church. The Antichrist is not Putin or Chairman Xi or Obama. He is the Antipope of the Counterfeit Catholic Church.

What Pope do you obey, then? If our duty is to God AND the Pope, then surely there is a Pope somewhere that you obey.
....
What Pope do you obey? It is absolutely imperative that ALL Catholics submit to the Pope, correct? Why should you be off the hook? 

The sede idea puts duties before obedience. You are correctly referring to obedience in this reply while sedes are talking duties. See my sig. which seems simple enough to us, but sedes can't apply the Church's highest principle to the pope, and at the same time remain sede.

Also, the dogma states that for salvation it is absolutely necessary that all humans must be *subject* to the pope, it does not say we must *submit* to him with blind obedience.

No, Catholics are not required to pay lip service to a "cardboard" pope while deriding him.  Catholics are required to obey and submit to the Pope.  But obviously there can be times when there is no pope, such as during an interregnum.

When has an interregnum been announced by competent Church authorities? Or is that something that the laity get to decide for themselves? See, that seems democratic to me. Just as the laity getting to decide if a Pope is really a Pope. It's as if the Pope is subject to the laity. So, with these democratic principles in mind, you should be choosing your own pope. In democracies, the PEOPLE elect their own government.