FWIW, all the Bennyplenists I've ever heard speak to the issue give reasons such as Sean listed (from Coffin).  I've never heard one say, "it's because he's more conservative" or "he freed the Latin Mass."

Coffin’s list, not mine 

Right, I understand.  I'm just reacting to the comment he made.

Roger that; we’re all posting at the same time

Here’s how I would appraise Coffin’s 7 pieces of evidence:

1) Neither here not there;

2) A canonical defect would be “healed in the root” by Francis’s acceptance (Billot);

3) Immaterial;

4) False: He is Cardinal Ratzinger (His Eminence is his proper title);

5) See #2;

6) He is making an argument of fact.  What exactly is his argument to support this claim??

7) See #2.

Overall, a very weak list.  The only possibility I can see is demonstrating #6 (but nobody in the conciliar church has made this claim thus far).

Bump

That's why I wrote "(from Coffin)".

Ah, my bad.

Do Bennyvacantists truly think there was no Crisis in the Church during the reign of Pope Benedict? Why didn't they give up their Trad chapels and go back to their local parishes?

They probably did -- because they weren't really TRADS, didn't have any illicit chapels to begin with, and were only after the "Latin Mass" which Pope Benedict made much more available at their local parishes.

In short, Bennyvacantism is an INDULT phenomenon, and the logical result of the error of having any truck with the Conciliar Church, seeking permission for your birthright which is to attend the Tridentine Mass, nourish your Faith and/or save your soul.

The then Fr Ratzinger was a suited radical at V2, and while he did repent somewhat when he saw the disorder of student protest at the end of the sixties, his theology is still formed around V2. When he became Pope he did at least revise the ecuмenical meeting at Assisi so it was no longer a pagan prayer meeting, and he fixed ruled to defrock perv priests, which Francis temporarily stymied. I would say that diocesan traditionalists were a thing, variously using priests with the Bugnini indult to offer their private Mass which they happened to attend, priests who often assisted the SSPX. Fr Michael Cresswell was one who helped get the SSPX in Ireland off the ground. Fr Alan Wilders was another diocesan priest who helped the SSPX. Later he helped found St. Patrick's Academy, Islandeady, a boarding school in Mayo. When the diocesan traditional Mass resumed in Ireland in 1984, it was not a matter of a priest having to wrack his brain to recall to how offer the Mass for priests were offering it wherever a room could be hired. Some were SSPX, some friends of it, others diocesan or Order. That said, I don't think Patrick Coffin is a hardbitten, long in the tooth, diocesan trad, just a usual grifter.

Bene-vacantists are one scandal away from recognizing there is no pope. They aren't grounded in what a true Papacy is.

They'll be in a bind once the Rat kicks the bucket

FWIW, all the Bennyplenists I've ever heard speak to the issue give reasons such as Sean listed (from Coffin).  I've never heard one say, "it's because he's more conservative" or "he freed the Latin Mass."

But would they give any of these other reasons if there was no Summorum Pontifcuм?  I strongly doubt it.

These folks will jump right back onto the Conciliar train if a Benny XVII is elected.

They'll be in a bind once the Rat kicks the bucket

The "Rat" isn't going "to kick the bucket" until after the following happens (Jeremiah 52):

31 And it came to pass in the seven and thirtieth year of the captivity, of Joachin king of Juda, in the twelfth month, the five and twentieth day of the month, that Evilmerodach king of Babylon, in the first year of his reign, lifted up the head of Joachin king of Juda, and brought him forth out of prison. 32 And he spoke kindly to him, and he set his throne above the thrones of the kings that were with him in Babylon. 33 And he changed his prison garments, and he ate bread before him always all the days of his life. 34 And for his diet a continual provision was allowed him by the king of Babylon, every day a portion, until the day of his death, all the days of his life.

Benedict XVI is Joachin. The 40 years of "the exile/captivity" started in July 1988 with the Lefebvre "excommunications." The "seven and thirtieth year" means the period after the completion of 36 years but before the completion of 37 years, which would be from July 2024 to June 2025. The twelfth month refers to the month of Adar in the Hebrew calendar, rather than the Gregorian calendar. So the date of the event described in Jeremiah 52:31-34, under my assumptions, would be March 25, 2025, the Feast of the Annunciation. 

However, the precise date is not critical. Accepting the calendar uncertainties, the date for Benedict's restoration will be in the near future. A few years from now at most. 

You can triangulate all of the dates referred to by using three sources: the 70 years in Jeremias 25-29/Daniel 9, the 40 years of the captivity/exile in Jeremias, and the years in the reign of Sedecias in Ezechiel. The 70 years starts with John XXIII calling the Vatican II Council in January 1959. The 40 years starts with Lefebvre's excommunication in July 1988, and the years discussed in Ezechiel start with Bergoglio's anti-papacy in March 2013. All of those prophecies are connected, overlap and end in 2027-2028.