Yes. It's a great two-man act. Francis says X, Y, and Z, which even a 7-year-old could see are complete heresies, because they directly contradict long-standing Catholic teaching. So the conservatives say, "Right, see, he's bad, so stick with Benedict and our 'traditional interpretation' of Vatican II." So you think you're safe there and start going to a traditional chapel that's still in communion with Rome. But then the liberals can point to statements in Vatican II or from JP2 or Benedict that say the same things Francis is saying. So if you think they were legitimate, isn't Francis legitimate?
When you really look into it, Francis's theology isn't any different from Benedict's, JP2's, or Vatican II. He's just a lot more blatant about it, because he's a radical and not all that bright. He doesn't want to ease Catholics a little further down the path toward the new religion; he wants to finish the revolution and get to the fun stuff now.
So the only way to be consistent and make sense of the situation is to reject all the Modernist popes, recognize that the Vatican hierarchy left the Church at Vatican II -- exactly when the break came before that doesn't matter much -- and stick with the 1900 years of Church teaching that we can count on.