Wrong again. As St. Thomas makes clear, any true law must be reasonable. Otherwise, it is no law at all and should be ignored.

https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.I-II.Q90.A1

 "it sufficiently clear that he intends to resign.  There need be no formal docuмent.  He could walk out the door and say, "Seeya."
This is correct. To put this in simple and practical terms, since there is no superior above the pope he can dispense from all canonical laws, even if he or a previous pope enacted them.

When I read the Bennyvacantist posts, I am confirmed in my thinking that the whole resignation was a ruse (by Ratzinger and the rest of the Modernists) to create exactly what we're seeing: Catholics busy focusing on Ratzinger (and choosing between him and Bergoglio, good cop vs bad cop) rather than paying attention to the bigger picture of the last 60 + years.  

Your interpretation of UDG is now moot.  Pope Benedict XVI passed away.  We now need a new papal election as Jorge Bergoglio is an antipope.

We've needed a new papal election since Pope Gregory XVII passed away in 1989.  Ratzinger was no more pope than Jorge is.

"it sufficiently clear that he intends to resign.  There need be no formal docuмent.  He could walk out the door and say, "Seeya."
This is correct. To put this in simple and practical terms, since there is no superior above the pope he can dispense from all canonical laws, even if he or a previous pope enacted them.

But even if he just did as I caricatured above, he would actually be in compliance with the law, since if you actually read the law, it simply states that he needs to make his intention to resign sufficiently clear.  It does not stipulate that he has to issue any kind of formal docuмent, or even any docuмent at all (as it could be verbal), much less that he needs to use the word "munus".

Your interpretation of UDG is now moot.  Pope Benedict XVI passed away.  We now need a new papal election as Jorge Bergoglio is an antipope.

Please explain what you mean that my "interpretation of UDG is now moot." The point of my "interpretation" is that Bergoglio is not now nor has he ever been "the Pope." He is an Antipope.

Bergoglio is the focus. 99% of "Catholics" act as if he is "the Pope." This deception that he is the Pope is relevant. He has called the Synod on Synodality. He is leading the 99% into "apostasy" precisely because they think that he is "the Pope." And they believe that they must do whatever "the Pope" says. 

Finally, his status as Antipope reveals that he is the Antichrist described inn 2 Thessalonians 2, which is the infallible sign of the final trial of the Church. The sooner Catholics understand this, the more likely they will be to escape the worst that is to come.

Those who are ready for the Warning will have a much better experience of that event than those who are taken by surprise. Those found "watching" will be blessed, not "warned."

Pope is in fact above anything short of Divine Law (that includes natural law), and he can dispense with it or ignore it on a whim.

1. Concerning Natural Law, St. Thomas Aquinas explains (https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.I-II.Q94.A5):

I answer that, A change in the natural law may be understood in two ways. First, by way of addition. In this sense nothing hinders the natural law from being changed: since many things for the benefit of human life have been added over and above the natural law, both by the Divine law and by human laws.

Second, a change in the natural law may be understood by way of subtraction, so that what previously was according to the natural law, ceases to be so. In this sense, the natural law is altogether unchangeable in its first principles: but in its secondary principles, which, as we have said (A4), are certain detailed proximate conclusions drawn from the first principles, the natural law is not changed so that what it prescribes be not right in most cases. But it may be changed in some particular cases of rare occurrence, through some special causes hindering the observance of such precepts, as stated above (A4).

2. Benedict XVI was the Pope at the time prior to the 2013 papal election. Benedict XVI did not "dispense with" the law of papal elections (UDG). In fact, just weeks before he took his leave of absence, he publicly re-confirmed UDG and made minor modifications to it in his Apostolic Letter Normas non nullas.

Bergoglio was not the Pope when the 2013 election began, so he was not in the position to "dispense with" anything in an Apostolic Constitution like UDG. Only a Pope could dispense with something like that.

Here is Aquinas on Dispensations from Natural law and Human Laws (https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.I-II.Q97.A4):

Reply Obj. 3: Natural law, so far as it contains general precepts, which never fail, does not allow of dispensations. In other precepts, however, which are as conclusions of the general precepts, man sometimes grants a dispensation: for instance, that a loan should not be paid back to the betrayer of his country, or something similar. But to the Divine law each man stands as a private person to the public law to which he is subject. Wherefore just as none can dispense from public human law, except the man from whom the law derives its authority, or his delegate; so, in the precepts of the Divine law, which are from God, none can dispense but God, or the man to whom He may give special power for that purpose.

So now Francis is the antipope (in your opinion) not because he was not canonically elected, but because of his policies?

I have explained this before, Meg. He is an Antipope because he was not canonically-elected.

For those who cannot understand the canonical election issues, they should be able to see that he is an Antipope because a public, obstinate heretic is not even Catholic. You cannot be a non-Catholic and still be "the Pope."

Take your pick. He is the "bad guy." Have nothing to do with him. Avoid those who call him their "Holy Father."

I have explained this before, Meg. He is an Antipope because he was not canonically-elected.

For those who cannot understand the canonical election issues, they should be able to see that he is an Antipope because a public, obstinate heretic automatically loses his office.

Take your pick. He is the "bad guy." Have nothing to do with him. Avoid those who call him their "Holy Father."

That Jorge Bergoglio is a public manifest formal heretic is post factum evidence that he was not canonically elected because a true pope cannot be a formal heretic.  That a true pope cannot be a formal heretic is the First Opinion of the Five Opinions expounded upon by St. Robert Bellarmine.  It was the opinion he held and the common opinion of theologians during the first half of the 20th century.  Unfortunately, many, if not most, within the so-called Resistance have been negatively influenced by the likes of Robert Siscoe and John Salza to adopt the Fourth Opinion, that is, that a true pope can be a public heretic and yet retain his office until judged by the Church.  Furthermore, they erroneously use Archbishop Lefebvre to defend this position in regards to Jorge Bergoglio.