CathInfo.com

I looked up the text of Ratzinger's resignation speech (unfortunately it's an English translation, but) and this seems to be the operative part:
.

.
All the bizarre explanations about how he didn't actually resign from the papacy completely seem unworkable in light of the words: in such a way, that as from February 28, 2013, at 8 p.m., the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant.
.
Maybe that's why the Bennyvacantists seldom quote that part of the speech, even though it's the most important part.

Yep ... and if I recall he added "and a conclave will need to be held."  He deliberately added that circuмlocution so there would be no doubt.

I for one am glad that Bergoglio sits on the See, since he makes it abundantly clear what the Novus Ordo is.  Benedict XVI was more subtle and fooled people into believing that he was a Traditionalist.

EDIT:  I took a moment to check the link:  "and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is."

I don't think he intended to partially-resign.  He was simply trying to characterize what a "Pope emeritus" would be and he repeatedly said that he would keep the munus OF PRAYER.  He viewed his role as Pope Emeritus as supporting the Pope through prayer and possibly advice/consultation.  That's the context of this munus.

This is all utter nonsense, wishful thinking from those who can't stand Bergoglio (for which I don't blame them).  That's actually demonstrated by the fact that they have other backup arguments:  the rigged conclave, and Ratzinger leaving under duress ... both of which IMO have more merit than the mangling of his intention to resign, which is quite clear from the words, with the rigged conclave having more merit because there's some concrete evidence for it, whereas Ratzinger leaving under duress is pure speculation.  But when you have multiple unrelated reasons like this, it's because you've already decided which conclusion you want and are looking for reasons to back it up.

They yearn for the glory days of Benedict, whom they consider much better.  I consider it much worse.  It's the difference between offering people a cyanide capsule marked cyanide or blending the cyanide into a delicious cake or cookie.  People are much more likely to swallow the poison when it's camoflauged.

All that stuff sounds “clear” but it’s irrelevant.  The only question is, did he follow canon law *completely* in resigning?  If he didn’t, then the resignation wasn’t valid.  
.
Much like 2 Catholics who get up in front of the altar, with witnesses and a priest, etc and they make up their own vows.   They can say all manner of things which sound “like a marriage ceremony” but if they don’t follow the form of the sacrament, then it’s not valid.
.
This is all a legal question.  The devil is in the details.

I don't agree.  It's clearly about his intent.  Beside that, what part of Canon Law did he violate?  Nowhere does Canon Law say that he has to write a letter in which he states that he's abandoning the munus.  All it says is that his intention must be properly manifested.  It doesn't even say there has to be a docuмent.  This is merely contrary to someone abandoning the papacy without explaining they're resigning, say, if one of these guys just didn't show up one day and went to shack up with a girlfriend (or, more likely these days, a boyfriend).  What's under discussion is whether what he wrote "properly manifests" his intention to quit.  It clearly does, and there's no reasonable doubt.