What boldness to imply preferences upon the pope. Unfortunately, your irrelevant and erroneous opinion conforms to compromising majority. Legal and factual circumstances prove otherwise. You should try to educate on canonic - historical evidence which documents termination of Petrine Office regularly by death and extraordinarly by a valid resignation. A retiremnent or abdication objectively is not applicalble to the aforemnentioned practice and tradition. For this reason and other pope Benedict XVI remains the pope untill deceased despite contrary subjective personal and quantitative preferences.

"What boldness to imply preferences upon the pope."

First, I'm not "implying" that Benedict has a preference, I'm explicitly stating he does. @Rafał_Ovile

--when he initially stepped down he wanted to be called "Father Benedict" rather than Pope Emeritus or Benedict XVI, but "I was too weak at that point to enforce it."--

Got that, Rafal? Father Benedict. That's a direct from Benedict himself. You are imposing a title on Benedict, one he has explicitly repudiated long ago.

Second, he isn't pope anymore. He's made that abundantly clear as well, particularly as he explains why he wants to be called Father Benedict...

--At least part of the reason for wanting his new title to simply be "Father" rather than Pope Emeritus or Benedict XVI is to put more space between him and the role of the pope, so that there is no confusion as to who the "true Pope" is.

Third, this isn't my opinion, it's Benedict's..

Fourth, my statement isn't an opinion it's a fact since it accurately describes Benedict's opinion. which means...

Fifth, it's neither "irrelevant" nor "erroneous", demonstrating once again..

Sixth, you don't know what the bloodly blue blazes you're talking about as usual. For example...

"Legal and factual circumstances prove otherwise."

Prove? You can't "prove" anything of the sort! Every time you've tried to present a "legal" or "factual" argument, I've joyfully kicked your teeth in. I'll be more than happy to do so again. It's been blessedly quiet on GTV of late, but I certainly wouldn't mind hearing your humiliated whining and ever-more affected English once more before Christmas.

"You should try to educate on canonic - historical evidence which documents termination of Petrine Office regularly by death and extraordinarly by a valid resignation."

I'm better educated on the subject than you'll ever be and your English is abysmal as ever. Incidentally telling me "you should educate" is, in fact, an "irrelevant and erroneous" substitute for factual support of your claims. But when has that ever stopped you? :D

"A retiremnent or abdication objectively is not applicalble to the aforemnentioned practice and tradition."

Try writing coherent English without the pseudo-legalese. Here's an example of simple, direct English:

Benedict resigned. Benedict resigned in full compliance with Canon Law 332.2. You can't prove otherwise. If you try, I will prove you wrong. You will lose. You have lost in the past. You will lose again.

You don't know what you're talking about, you don't know how to say it properly either. But when has that ever stopped you, either? :D

If you'd like to discuss the specific requirements set down in Canon Law and Benedict's fulfillment or supposed failure to do so, go right ahead.

Otherwise, skip the inflated vocabulary. A thesaurus is a poor substitute for facts and no substitute at all for basic English fluency, which you lack.

Do us both a favor and confine yourself to the Polish-language section of the site where, perhaps, factual accuracy is measured by how many prepositions you can string together in one sentence. :P