They've been telling anyone who would listen that JPII was a modernist who inflicted untold damage on the Church. They certainly don't regard him as a man of great sanctity. Ditto for all the Popes since Pius XII. Pius X was a saint.......absoutely.........but not JPII. He can't be mentioned in the same breath. How can the post-Vatican II church produce good fruit? It's completely rotten, surely? Therefore, his beatification and likely subsequent canonization poses a problem.
Either admit that you're wrong in your assessment of him or cast doubt on the process of his beatification.
A no brainer.
Admission of error is a vanishingly rare thing in the trad world, where haranguing the Pope and criticizing his every move is a lifestyle and spiritual pride is endemic.
No..........we're right......the process must be flawed.
Your whole writing is one big strawman:
1) They've been telling anyone who would listen that JPII was a modernist who inflicted untold damage on the Church.
Has the Church not suffered unheard of damage in the last 50 years?
2) How can the post-Vatican II church produce good fruit? It's completely rotten, surely?
Where is the good fruit of Vatican II? Show me.
3) Therefore, his beatification and likely subsequent canonization poses a problem
He's not canonized. Beatifications are not infallible. Charlemagne is a Blessed in France, along with many others like him in every country, and there they have remained through the centuries.
Your whole writing is a strawman and devoid of any reasoning. Typical "feelings oriented types" hollow response.
95% of Catholics in Catholic countries of Europe do not even go to mass. In Brazil, the largest Catholic country in the world, it's over 93%, and the priesthood is known as a homosexual occupation.