You've shown no proof that "religious syncretists and indifferentists" ever had the power to "force BXVI to abdicate". Nor have you shown any evidence they have the power to force "islamists to contradict him". Whatever delusional world-view you have is even further divorced from reality than any of your criticisms about this cartoon.

Further, someone needs to explain the concepts of "parody" and "satire" to you. This is a political cartoon, not a doctoral thesis on theology.

Your false conviction of my delusion derives from your ignorance. I.e. you have not yet made a single reference to one refelection on the subject of "double-papacy."

A parody and satire, theological being, should transmitt true reality... Especially that which concern present pope Benedict XVI. Do you now desire to comprehend or still not?

My conviction derives from your inability to factually support your views when challenged. You made a claim, "religious syncretists and indifferentists wouldn't bother to force BXVI to abdicate or islamists to contradict him."

I asked you to show support that any Christian religious group has the ability to "force" Islamists to do anything connected to their religion,except what they please. You didn't. Instead, you returned to your long-discredited (by Benedict himself) and equally unsupported view about " present pope Benedict XVI."

He is not the present Pope. You can not and will not factually support your views because you can't. If this is your idea of intelligent conversation, you must be a horrible bore at parties. I don't know what is worse your stubborness or your stupidity.

Stuart, without proper philosophical tools you will not read reality and wonder from cartoons... If you do your basic theological homework then you'll know there should be only one visible pope. Therefore all other are false. Cardinals Burke and Muller already spoke of the present situation as the final trial in The Church by religious deception offered at the price of apostasy from the truth. (CCC675) Already many Catholics are shaken and unfortunately more trouble will come for the elect and deceived... unless they show humility and adhere to truth.

Humans have free will and can wrongly decide to sin. Likewise Francis and his worshippers. However, God has no part in sin and to proof HIS mercy is HE allows true pope - katechon - Benedict XVI to live...

Some argue Francis does not meet all pre-requisites to be the apocalyptic False Prophet. Nevertheless, St. Francis' prophecy on Sovereign Pontiff and Destroyer is strikingly in close conjunction to the present situation... Keep-watching...

Oh lucky me, Professor Olive is here with proper "philosophical tools" to "read reality and wonder from cartoons". Lord's Wounds, Olive. Where do you invent such asinine and convoluted dialogue?

It's a pity your supposed scholarship never included studying the concept of "argumentum ad nauseam". You've repeated your "one visibile pope" argument before, you've been soundly discredited and it's nothing more than mindless tedium on your part at this point.

What is shaking Catholics world-wide is not a retired Pope. It's the current lawfully-elected Pope turning the Chruch on its head and reinventing Catholic teachings to support socio-political views that are diammetrically opposite to the entirety of Chruch teachings.

Your problem is you're obsessed with "two popes" and can't see any further than your own pathological emotionally immature neurosis. Suppose Benedict XVI died tomorrow. God forbid, but let us suppose. So? Now you have your "one visible pope", the Pope is Francis and he goes on doing and saying insane things. Has Benedict's presence or absence changed that? No.

That's an amusing cricism coming from a man I've beaten in formal arguments twice now. It's also an extremely pretentious one and says nothing good about your ego. The only "science fiction" happening on this site is your own fundamental disconnect with Papal reality.

In the interim, go annoy someone else with your fatuous, asinine posturing.

Dr Bobus Catholism is much simpler than ruptured post-consiliarism. Ie. “Any cult which denies the divinity of Christ, does not profess the existence of the Holy Trinity, refutes baptism, defames Christians, and derogates the priesthood, we consider to be damned.”
-Sts. Aurelius, Felix, George, Liliosa, and Natalia (d. 852), martyrs of Cordoba, Spain. Reported in the Memoriale Sanctorum in response to Spanish Umayyad Caliph ‘Abd Ar-Rahman II’s ministers that they convert to Islam on pain of death.

@Rafael_Ovile

1. Denying the existence of Christ and failing to recognize Him are not the same thing.

2. When did the Holy Innocents profess the Holy Trinity?

3. Citing one or a few Fathers of the Church is not adequate to prove doctrine or its interpretation. In fact, those who are intellectually responsible for the contemporary crisis in the Church often followed that MO. They “proved” their ideas by citing one or a few Fathers.

I follow the old criterion. Agreement among the four greatest Western Fathers and the Four greatest Eastern Fathers is proof of doctrine or its interpretation.

Western: Augustine, Gregory, Ambrose, Jerome
Eastern: Athanasius, Chrysostom, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen.

Dr Bobus 1. Distinction valid after or before public Revelation? 2. When did Holy Trinity fully Reveal, after or before Holy Innocents life? 3. Any citation should accord theologically in time and space with Church absolute dogmatic truth which your second part [Others, e.g., Moslems, believe in God the Creator and life after death. So Catholics have certain Truths in common with them...] of the commnent obviously contradicts. Such nonsense about islam conforms to modernist error and deception enclosed in Nostra Aetate as muslims are considered by Roman catholic Church as infidels. [i.e. reference to pt. 2 of MORTALIUM ANIMOS.]