Thinking about the taxonomy of Latin Catholics and the second Vatican Council... who were the "progressives" during the council? What did they seek to change? And the "conservatives"? What did they seek to conserve? The status quo? For the conservatives, perhaps, orthodoxy is identified solely with scholastic formulae, a tradition within the Latin ecclesial tradition but not the only one. Some of the progressives may have wanted to shift the expression of teaching to other traditions; the Ressourcement theologians for example wanted some sort of return to the Church Fathers. Does that mean all progressives were right-minded? There may have been some who were heterodox, seeking to change the beliefs or moral norms of Tradition, just as there are heterodox among Latin clergy and theologians today. And even if some progressives were correct that the Latin churches need to shift their expression of doctrine away from neoscholasticism, it does not mean that their judgement about necessary changes in discipline or liturgy were also correct.

How many of the Ressourcement theologians were willing to concede that what had been taken to be definitive expressions of Sacred Tradition by western councils and popes in the second millenium may not be so?

Related:
CWR Dispatch: A "Conclave" for Camelot by Mary Jo Anderson
Robert Harris's new thriller is about papal intrigue and Vatican politics; it is also an example of how progressives envision the Catholic Church changing with the times.