Maybe I am missing something, but this article seems not only to contradict the universal acceptance defense of Francis’s papacy (granted, the article is written I THINK before Siscoe’s book, so he may not have arrived at that position yet?), but also the core defense of Benevacantism (ie., that BXVI was forced out, therefore his resignation is invalid) by portraying BXVI as an active collaborator attacking the hierarchical constitution of the church, and replacing it with collegial rule a la the Orthodox.
If that were true, Benevacantism falls apart, as he would in reality be not an invalidly dispossessed pope, but an attacking pope.