f you wish to show a newspaper article is wrong or an official Vatican document is false then YOU need to link up an alternative, accredited source. You did not.

...and THIS from the man who claims the burden of proof is on the accuser. :D

No, it's not because he defended his so-called resignation that it proves that he resigned in the same way that he didn't resign because there was the pressure by the Bank of Italy on the Vatican.

All this is very subtle and has to be carefully understood. Even when Pope Benedict XVI published a paper on the 11th Avril, he thanked Francis in the same way that many Catholics would thank someone working for the Devil that make understood to everyone that God exists due to the shadows he covers up the world.

And the letter of resignation on the Vatican website has been judged invalid given he made a mistake when saying it. As the Bank of Italy could not beat him in public so that he would not make a mistake, they had to accept this situation.

"Between the lines" means Canon Law does not say what you want it to. You know what is "between the lines" of canon law? Nothing. A blank page. White space. People like you see whatever you want to see "between the lines" because the lines say something different.

You need to learn functional English before you criticize illiteracy, Rafal. In English you are barely literate which is why you run like a little dog from a serious debate.

No, your argument is irrelevant as if there are pressures, the resignation is not valid according to the Canon law. And as the document here proves that there was a pressure from Bank of Italy, it can't be valid. In the same way also that the election of Francis can't be valid too given that Cardinal Daneels admitted to belong to a mafia and that makes null and void the election as they plotted and it's forbidden. No need even of knowing the Canon law, anyone a minimum logical know this even for the daily life.

Wrong.

Canon law Can. 332 §2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.
www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P16.HTM

Nobody forced Benedict to resign. Pressure is a form of influence. But the final decision still remains with Benedict and he did resign and he has not ever claimed he was forced.
Poor health "pressured" Benedict to resign. He is getting very old and sick. But again, the final choice was freely made which is valid according to Canon law.

This is a good time to point out you are proceeding from an unproven premise, namely that Benedict lied and continues to lie about the reason for his retirement. Benedict has, in fact, even defended his actions, which shows he freely chose to resign.