The "aggriornamento" was about proclaiming the unchanging truths of the Catholic faith to the modern world. It was not about changing the truths of that faith. Nor were the Vatican II documents. If some have used the so-called "spirit of Vatican II" to try and change the teachings of the faith, they are abusing the same, not authentiaclly representing it. The present and previous Pope have been doing much to weed out carefully and prudently erroneous interpretations of the Vatican II Council. It would be helpful if so-called "traditionalists" reentered full communion with the successor of Peter and helped him to do so, rather than continually try to undermine the Catholic Church and promote schismatic parallel structures.
The present Pope? The one who wrote and contributed to Vatican II and was one of Rahner and Kung's best buddies. I love the Modernist liberal statement that "Vatican II was just implemented wrong". Read any of the 16 documents and one paragraph sounds "Catholic" and the next right after is so liberal and against everything the church taught and you would think it would teach it is mind boggling.
The present "Pope", who refused to take the Papal Oath, and considers himself no more than a figurehead and a Bishop, as Vatican II made into fact, has no real power, throws something to keep the right wing (or whatever is left of it) in line like bringing back chant or whatever, and then goes and meets with Rabbis or does some more damage.
He is not a leader. Would you consider George Bush or any of our Presidents a leader if they refused to take the Oath of office? Until a Pope takes the Oath I dont consider them the Pope, just a Bishop or a Cardinal.