I only have the commentary here on FR as a guide, so I suppose the sample is skewed, then
...ah, so you have a quite limited idea of that which you post about...
Vatican II is routinely decried on an ongoing basis, as is Pope Francis.
...Vatican II was, and is, a highly controversial issue...fundamentally altering Catholic identity for the foreseeable future...the innovations that came in its wake, generally now as the ‘spirit of Vat II’, have caused a great deal of mischief, and has led to an undeniabe lassitude in Catholic catechesis...to not criticize constitutes moral malfeasance...
Those making the claim here are verging upon schism themselves.
...what claim are you talking about...? and also, be careful of your understanding of the term ‘schism’...
There are quite a number here who do not accept Pope Francis. I watched threads as he went through the initial ceremony and he was called demonic because he didn’t genuflect at a certain point where it was believed that ritual or ceremony called for it. You know as well as I do that there are a number of sedevacantists here, and a larger number of SSPX. I’m aware of Fellay and I know of the controversy that surrounds him. The Roman Catholicism championed by traditionalists is not representative at all of reality, with Francis working to remove traditionalists, apparently. So, it would seem to me that those who are quite literally claiming to be more Catholic than the Pope here are verging upon schism. Constant appeals to authority while simultaneously rejecting it themselves are not at all persuasive.