It is so interesting to read Yves Congar’s My Journal of the Council to read the behind the scenes account of the battle among theologians like himself with what he described as the rigid ultramontanism of the conservatives, who resisted any change to the status quo, and promoted the role of the papacy to such an extent that it was as if the Pope was the source of Revelation.
Congar was pushing for a return to Scripture and Tradition—because he thought the power of the papacy had become too concentrated and the Catholic Church had become too Roman, too Italian, locked into a monarchical model. Though traditionalists often trash Nouvelle Theologie as modernist, I see it as springing from a desire to return to the Sources of Catholic teaching—Revelation, i.e. Scripture and the teachings of the Early Church Fathers rather than being confined to a Neo-Scholastic and philosophical approach to doctrine alone. (Not that, however, that approach has ever been abrogated! It hasn’t. I would say it has been fleshed out. Just as natural law has never been abrogated. It can’t be abrogated! Any new approach to theology must keep in mind the entire conversation going back to the first Apostles—no rupture. )
Well, interestingly, now it is the traditionalists who are crying out “Scripture and Tradition!” against a perceived ultramontanism of today’s progressives who see Pope Francis as their ally in changing the teachings of the Church, or at least its pastoral practice, which is tantamount to the same thing. (I do not think Pope Francis will change either the teaching or the pastoral practice).
I am for Scripture and Tradition and the Pope as a sign of unity and defender of the deposit of faith.