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.
Foolishness to the world 
Deborah,
You wrote: 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.
Pope Paul VI addressed this very subject in No. 6-9 the General Instructions of the Roman Missal promulgated in 1969, which remain unchanged in the most recent edition. Here are his words (emphasis and boldface in original; internal citations removed). Note especially the last of these paragraphs.
You wrote: 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).
Oh, he will change pastoral practice alright — but not in the manner for which progressives agitate, and most assuredly not in any manner contrary to theological or moral doctrine.
>> The pope has already signaled that he wishes to modify the discipline of clerical celibacy, but that he wants the initiative on this to come from the episcopal conferences rather than from the top.
>> And the need for accommodation of the Orthodox pastoral practice in dealing with failed attempts at marriage is also clear: reconciliation of the ecumenical patriarchate and the majority of the churches of the Orthodox Communion requires it. The question is how far this will extend.
>> And the pope clearly wants homosexual individuals to feel welcome in the Catholic Church, meaning at least a more pastoral application of the existing norms. Homosexuality, like illegitimacy, is often the fruit of sin — but not the sin of the homosexual individual.
But all of this is possible within the framework of existing doctrine.
Norm.