Does Francis know he is a "pseudo-pope" according to Antonio Socci?

Does Francis know he is a "pseudo-pope" according to Antonio Socci?

Socci in his book said "during the days of the polemical statements [by Team Francis] concerning Ratzinger's preface to the book of Cardinal Sarah Bergoglio [Francis] gave a homily that seemed to be a criticism of the pope emeritus, specifically for his 'halfway' resignation."

Francis said:

"[A] pastor has to... take his leave well, to not leave only halfway."

Socci questioned:

"To whom is he referring? To Benedict XVI who relinquished all the power of governance while remaining pope?"
(The Secret of Benedict XVI, Pages 123-124)

In Francis criticizing Benedict's "'halfway' resignation" is he implicitly admitting the thesis of Dr. Ed Mazza that "Benedict XVI who relinquished all the power of governance [as the Bishop of Rome]... remain[ed]... pope [the Successor of Peter] " according to Socci?

The thesis of Dr. Mazza that Pope Benedict relinquished the power of the Bishop of Rome while remaining the pope (the Successor of Peter) seems to be restating or at least mirroring Antonio Socci's theory.

The Socci book theorizes that there would be a "state of exception."

Both use the quoted phrase a "state of exception" in their thesis.
(Taylor Marshall Show, "Is Pope Benedict XVI still (but Francis is Bishop of Rome?) Mazza Thesis Revisited," 1;23:38)

Benedict's resignation said:

"[M]y strengths... are no longer suited to the adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry."

For theologian and canonist Stefano Violi the key limiting term or word in the resignation is "exercise":

"[T]he limited renunciation of the active exercise of the munus constitutes the absolute novelty of the renunciation of Benedict XVI."

Respected canonist Guido Ferro Canales says that this type of "renunciation" echoes the famous German Philosopher Carl Schmitt's "philosophical category of a 'state of exception'":

"Here, the 'state of exception' is to be understood... the suspension of the entire order of law that is in force. If this situation occurs, it is clear that the State continues, while the law is lost."

Canales explains how this applies to the "limited renunciation" that was examined by Violi:

"The pontificate of Benedict XVI became a 'pontificate of exception' by virtue of his resignation... A state of affairs that cannot be regulated a priori and thus, if it occurs, requires the suspension of the entire juridical order."
(The Secret of Benedict XVI, Pages 80-85)

Scholars Alon Harel and Assaf Sharon explain how Aquinas sees the "state of exception" or "Case of Necessity":

In the Summa Theologica Aquinas addresses the case of necessity by focusing on the limits of legislation. Aquinas asserts that: The lawgiver cannot have in view every single case, he shapes the law according to what happens more frequently by directing his attention to the common good. Wherefore, if a case arises wherein the observance of that law would be hurtful to the general welfare, it should not be observed.11Furthermore, Aquinas recognizes that cases falling into this category are not “legislatable” and adds that:

 He who in a case of necessity acts besides the letter of the law does not judge of the law but of a particular case in which he sees that the letter of the law is not to be observed. 

Last, Aquinas stresses that agents operating under these exceptional circumstances are not accountable to the law as in ordinary cases. In his view: “The mere necessity brings with it a dispensation, since necessity knows no law.” 11 St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part II, 1st part, que. 96, art 6. See also II, II, que. 110 art.1. [https://www.law.utoronto.ca/documents/conferences2/Constitutionalism09-Harel.pdf]

Scholar Michael Davies explained how the teaching of Aquinas' "necessity knows no law” or "case of necessity" applied to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre referencing St. Athanasius (and now according to the above scholars to the Benedict resignation):

Archbishop Lefebvre has been compared rightly to St.Athanasius. He is the Athanasius of our times. Like St.Athanasius and like St. Eusebius of Samosata, he went into the dioceses of bishops who were not acting as good shepherds, to give the people the instruction, the sacramental grace, and the pastors that they needed. For one bishop to intrude into the diocese of another is a very serious matter. It can only be justified if there is a state of necessity. A state of emergency, urgency, or necessity occurs in the Church when its continuation, order, or activity are threatened or harmed in an important way, and the emergency cannot be overcome by observing the normal positive laws. The emergency would relate principally to teaching, the liturgy, and ecclesiastical discipline. An interesting reference to such a situation occurs in a study of the Church's divine constitution by Dom Adrien Grea, OSB, in his examination of the extraordinary powers of the episcopate:

"In the fourth century St. Eusebius of Samosata traveled thorough Eastern dioceses devastated by the Arians and ordained orthodox pastors for them, without having particular jurisdiction over them. These are evidently extraordinary actions, as were the Circumstances that gave rise to them."[http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/defense/sdavies.htm]