An Archbishop Lefebvre Question

[Timothysis]

The Church for a long time falsely believed that they were outside of Her, and for that reason, although still within the Church, the SSPX was basically free of the meddling of clerics who thought the society was outside the Church and were glad about that ‘fact’. Although inside the Church, many falsely believed it to be outside, and therefore didn’t give them a second thought.

Ah, but he wasn’t ‘gaining the world’ and he wasn’t neglecting God. He was fishing for souls and being a true shepherd to the flocks. And in his mind, in his informed conscience, he believed he was doing the right thing. Even though JPII claimed that his canon law argument held no weight, there’s still that argument because canon law itself allows for it. He believed a certain situation was there, and although the pope says there isn’t, canon law still allows for him to hold his opinion. Just read 1323 and 1324 again.

Rome can say “you’re excommunicated”, but only God makes the judgement of heaven or hell. To Lefebvre he was doing the good and necessary work. God will judge him. Here below he is already being vindicated. Rome is attempting to mollify the SSPX, not so much the other way around. As I’ve said to you before, the lifting of the excomms was not only a matter of generosity, but also a matter of justice.

Not exactly. Some humbled themselves, some persevere, and some, who are afraid of the stigma that the words ‘schism’ and ‘excommunication’ bring couldn’t bear it.

“Good Catholics” should simply do the will of God, and there are plenty inside and outside of the SSPX. Do you so liberally label the questionable, unorthodox priests who implemented things in the liturgy not proscribed by VII and the GIRM as ‘renegades’? Do you not shy away from their churches even though they are “clearly” “in communion” with Rome? I don’t know about you, but I certainly stay away. As a matter of fact, my upbringing in the Church was such that once I found traditional Mass locations, I never went back to the NO. I have so much love for the traditional way of life, and that type of thing is just about impossible to find in the NO. Lots of abuses, not a lot of Catholicism preached, not a whole lot of uniformity of belief among the believers (she uses birth control, but this other one doesn’t, but she believes in a woman’s right to ‘choose’, etc), little or no community among the faithful etc…Out of love for the TLM I just stick to it pretty much wherever I find it (although I wouldn’t visit the sedes).

Substitute the name Martin Luther for the name Archbishop Lefebvre in your post and you’ll see that it’s all been done before.

 

[Timothysis]

Exactly. The Catholic Church was very successful in trying to hush them up.

Oh, good grief. So, it truly seems to be that conspiracy theories are, indeed, one of the hallmarks of the self-styled “traditionalists.”

 

[Timothysis]

LOL…Thank you. Would you be able to give some idea of how the changes came to be?

The Vatican II council was an attempt by the Church to define herself in the modern world. Pope John XXIII was wise enough to see the great changes in society post world war and realized that the Church would wither and die if it wasn’t brought “up to date,” so to speak. Calls for the reform of the liturgy had been around for 100 years prior to the council, many Church leaders, including Pope Pius XII, were in favor of vernacular languages for the Mass so that people would truly participate instead of sitting there praying private devotions apart from the celebration of the Mass. Keep in mind that illiteracy in America dropped below the 30% mark in the 1950’s. People were better educated and understood better than people of previous decades or even centuries the doctrines and beliefs of the Church. Couple that with the post-war economic boon, the movement of many Americans out of the cities into the suburbs and the loss of the previously Catholic-centered neighborhoods and cities and you will see that the great shift caused serious changes in the way the Church was centered in people’s lives. The Missal of Pope Paul VI was, admittedly, an attempt to lure protestants back but the missal itself contains everything that previous Masses contained. Many here grudgingly admit that the documents of Vatican II, read in the constant traditions of the Church, are no break at all with what has gone before. The problem is the “spirit of Vatican II” that has caused the problems.

Some maintain the necessity of a “bogey man” to tarnish the council, such as modernists, liberals, and (my personal favorite) freemasons. The thing to keep in mind is that the Church is here to shepherd souls, not provide some sort of liturgical entertainment. The latin Mass, chant and all associated with it is fine, but so is Mass according to the Missal of Pope Paul VI. And that is what the purpose of the Council was, to shepherd souls in today’s modern world. People may criticize the ways things are going right now but it would be foolish to think that a complete return to the 1962 missal would change the course of things. Society is more influenced by the trash that we see in tv, movies and the internet than anything that the Church does or says (the reality is that the Church is always a target of anger when it does speak against the evils of today’s world). The porn industry is a 20+billion dollar a year industry. Things have been turned upside down since the 1950’s and 60’s; does anyone seriously think that a return to the “old days” will reverse that?

 

[CassiusLonginus]

Substitute the name Martin Luther for the name Archbishop Lefebvre in your post and you’ll see that it’s all been done before.

Not at all! Who changed? In the case of Luther, he was the one changed. He distorted the bible and Catholic dogma. With Lefebvre it is quite the opposite.

 

[Timothysis]

Not at all! Who changed? In the case of Luther, he was the one changed. He distorted the bible and Catholic dogma. With Lefebvre it is quite the opposite.

Your whole diatribe was about what “he thought was correct.” As a good catholic you should know that we have to heed objective reality, not subjective. Just because someone thinks they are right doesn’t mean it is so. Luther thought that what he was doing was right; the archbishop thought what he was doing was right. Both stood against the legitimate authority of the Church. So far, both men are in the same boat. How is it that “with Lefebvre it is quite the opposite?” Because YOU think so? Apparently, Church authority thinks otherwise.

 

[CassiusLonginus]

Oh, good grief. So, it truly seems to be that conspiracy theories are, indeed, one of the hallmarks of the self-styled “traditionalists.”

Oh come on, Tim. You proved his point yourself. 99 out of 100 Catholics haven’t even heard of the Society (and “tradition” in general, I would imagine, at least not before Pope Benedict), and that was the goal. Just look at the situation in the church rationally and logically and all you’ll find is the blessing of novelty and abuse and the squashing of tradition. Who are the only clerics (afaik) who were thrown out of the church under JPII? Yeah, the evil traddies who hold to ancient and archaic traditions that have no bearing on our time. The clerics who ought to have been thrown out are the ones who embrace “collegiality” and the ones who actually deny dogma and help souls to hell.

In regard to the point quoted above that you are referring to…Why would it take a declaration of a pope to make the VAST majority of Catholics realize that the TLM had never been abrogated if everybody already knew it. Trads knew it, but everybody else denied it loudly. All of a sudden here comes the pope say it’s never been abrogated and who has egg on their collectively smug faces? The clerics who had constantly been denying the fact…the ones who would not allow TLMs in their dioceses even after JPII’s “Wide and generous” application…What a farce. I can’t believe I have to explain this, especially after you yourself confirmed it by your own admission.

 

[CassiusLonginus]

Your whole diatribe was about what “he thought was correct.” As a good catholic you should know that we have to heed objective reality, not subjective. Just because someone thinks they are right doesn’t mean it is so. Luther thought that what he was doing was right; the archbishop thought what he was doing was right. Both stood against the legitimate authority of the Church. So far, both men are in the same boat. How is it that “with Lefebvre it is quite the opposite?” Because YOU think so? Apparently, Church authority thinks otherwise.

Objective reality: have you looked at the “catholic” statistics which cover a whole range of things lately? Have you looked at the abortion rates in formerly Catholic countries?

Also, you’re wrong, since the canons supply an ‘out’ for subjective belief. It’s very clear. Did you read 1323 and 1324 like I said? The pertinent words are:

“…even if only relative”

Luther was depraved and hated the church, like many catholic clergy members do today. Lefebvre had a great zeal for both the church and for souls. The Luther comparison is beyond ignorant. Luther wanted to live according to his own rules and passions, whereas Lefebvre wanted to continue traditional Catholicism. Once again, Tim, he didn’t change; Rome did.

As far as “Standing against the legitimate authority of the Church”…Is this a crime? Is somebody who does this always in the wrong?

 

[CassiusLonginus]

Things have been turned upside down since the 1950’s and 60’s; does anyone seriously think that a return to the “old days” will reverse that?

A return to solid Catholicism from our current wishy-washy practices couldn’t hurt. It’d get a lot of people off the fence in a hurry, that’s for sure, and it would finally send the message that the Catholic Church is a (the) REAL moral authority, and that it IS a serious institution, rather than a giant idiotic thing worthy of scorn.

If the shepherds actually shepherded I think there’s nothing that couldn’t be reversed in our icky society.

 

[Timothysis]

Objective reality: have you looked at the “catholic” statistics which cover a whole range of things lately? Have you looked at the abortion rates in formerly Catholic countries?

Abortion is an objective evil. I have no idea what this has to do with the Archbishop.

Also, you’re wrong, since the canons supply an ‘out’ for subjective belief. It’s very clear. Did you read 1323 and 1324 like I said? The pertinent words are:

“…even if only relative”

The ‘out’ that you refer to has to be an OBJECTIVE emergency. It was the archbishop’s position that the traditions of the Church were in danger of being lost. The Church hierarchy did not concur, the supreme legislature of Canon law did not concur in the legal defense and the pope himself did not concur. In any event, the archbishop was excommunicated for his willful disobedience. This is an objective fact.

Luther was depraved and hated the church,

Luther was actually very zealous about the Church. It was the papacy that he had a problem with.

like many catholic clergy members do today.

Nice. Do you have their names and numbers?

The Luther comparison is beyond ignorant.

The Luther comparison is dead on. Both challenged the authority of the Church; both defied their superiors; both did what they “thought” was right; both died excommunicated.

“Ignorant” is also a nasty little word; when one calls another “ignorant,” they set themselves up as superior over another. I’ve not read anything of yours that is superior to anything by anyone else here.

Luther wanted to live according to his own rules and passions, whereas Lefebvre wanted to continue traditional Catholicism. Once again, Tim, he didn’t change; Rome did.

And Luther wanted to return to “true” Christianity. And who is to say that Archbishop Lefebvre is the measure of “traditional Catholicism?” There are many here who consider themselves traditional Catholics who don’t attend Masses at chapels run by suspended priests who celebrate illicit sacraments. Is it also a mark of “traditional Catholicism” to die excommunicated?

As far as “Standing against the legitimate authority of the Church”…Is this a crime? Is somebody who does this always in the wrong?

No, not always wrong but when they have reached the end of the road then it is time to remember their place.

 

[Timothysis]

A return to solid Catholicism from our current wishy-washy practices couldn’t hurt. It’d get a lot of people off the fence in a hurry, that’s for sure, and it would finally send the message that the Catholic Church is a (the) REAL moral authority, and that it IS a serious institution, rather than a giant idiotic thing worthy of scorn.

You are a true son of the Church.

 

[CassiusLonginus]

The Luther comparison is beyond ignorant, and your adherence to it is telling. You say things like:

And who is to say that Archbishop Lefebvre is the measure of “traditional Catholicism?”

I know I’ve said it several times now, and I guess you won’t be reading it this time either, but I’ll try again anyway: Lefebvre didn’t change anything, thus we conclude that traditional Catholicism is the measure of traditional Catholicism (Lefebvre simply being a steward), and good job to anybody who holds fast to both Tradition and tradition, and who passes on what he has received whole and inviolate.

And because Lefebvre didn’t change one iota of dogma, this is why the Luther comparison is beyond ignorant. Yeah, they both defied their popes and both ended excommunicated. Luther was a heretic, Lefebvre was not and that’s why he has recourse to the canons, which allow for relative and subjective thought. Oh yeah, the other pertinent part of the canon (since I’m guessing you didn’t read it as I suggested) is “…unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls”, which it isn’t and doesn’t. That’s why Lefebvre has recourse and Luther doesn’t.

 

[aicirt]

The Vatican II council was an attempt by the Church to define herself in the modern world. Pope John XXIII was wise enough to see the great changes in society post world war and realized that the Church would wither and die if it wasn’t brought “up to date,” so to speak. Calls for the reform of the liturgy had been around for 100 years prior to the council, many Church leaders, including Pope Pius XII, were in favor of vernacular languages for the Mass so that people would truly participate instead of sitting there praying private devotions apart from the celebration of the Mass. Keep in mind that illiteracy in America dropped below the 30% mark in the 1950’s. People were better educated and understood better than people of previous decades or even centuries the doctrines and beliefs of the Church. Couple that with the post-war economic boon, the movement of many Americans out of the cities into the suburbs and the loss of the previously Catholic-centered neighborhoods and cities and you will see that the great shift caused serious changes in the way the Church was centered in people’s lives. The Missal of Pope Paul VI was, admittedly, an attempt to lure protestants back but the missal itself contains everything that previous Masses contained. Many here grudgingly admit that the documents of Vatican II, read in the constant traditions of the Church, are no break at all with what has gone before. The problem is the “spirit of Vatican II” that has caused the problems.

Some maintain the necessity of a “bogey man” to tarnish the council, such as modernists, liberals, and (my personal favorite) freemasons. The thing to keep in mind is that the Church is here to shepherd souls, not provide some sort of liturgical entertainment. The latin Mass, chant and all associated with it is fine, but so is Mass according to the Missal of Pope Paul VI. And that is what the purpose of the Council was, to shepherd souls in today’s modern world. People may criticize the ways things are going right now but it would be foolish to think that a complete return to the 1962 missal would change the course of things. Society is more influenced by the trash that we see in tv, movies and the internet than anything that the Church does or says (the reality is that the Church is always a target of anger when it does speak against the evils of today’s world). The porn industry is a 20+billion dollar a year industry. Things have been turned upside down since the 1950’s and 60’s; does anyone seriously think that a return to the “old days” will reverse that?

I’ll repeat again, the people in my parish back in the 60s were for Mass in English. Saw nothing wrong with the traditional Mass and would have like to have kept some Masses in Latin. Word was that Vatican II wouldnt’ allow it. Why? Never got an answer.

Then came, what I called the Hootenanny Mass, where a group of kids with guitars would strum while a girl in a flowing skirt would pat her tambourine and sing under poorly made felt banners with the words “Peace” “Hope” glued on the front. Sad. This was the improvement.

Maybe society is affected more by secular culture than by Catholics habits. However, I do agree with Roseline Moss who explained why she wanted her nuns to wear a full habit. She noted that society needs to see the presence of people who believe. We lost that with the loss of headcoverings, habits, cassocks,etc.

In a major city, like NY, we use to play a game called “Name the order.” You could see nuns from dozens of orders bustling about in the city. You could see Catholics. I think that is something that has been lost. We’re invisible. Catholics need to see other Catholics and others need to see us too.

 

[CassiusLonginus]

You are a true son of the Church.

You say it.

 

[K_of_A_Director]

I must encourage you all to do more historical research on the subject , the previous Popes had in advance condemned the very things that came out of this council despite all the language, translation, spirit, intensions, excuses or what have you . Sure, times were going to get tougher ,but removing the safeguards was not the answer . Did you know the Tridentine Mass was referred to as the barrier against heresy , and Pope Pius II when asked to call a council said that if he did the (internal) enemy’s of the church would take over ?. What was the real reason the Leonine prayers were removed after Mass ? Wasn’t the reason he started them a vision he had of the devil making havoc in the sanctuary . Why do the liberals like to give the council more authority than the council asked for ?
The disobedience that allegedly took down Archbishop Lefebvre was started when certain Popes disobeyed the binding statements of the previous ones, the Archbishop disobeyed JPII in “operation survival” to keep alive that which never should have been tampered with in obedience to the warnings of those of those Popes of the previous decades and centuries. A Catholic is safe when doing what the Catholic church has always done .(And I do mean staying out of these novelties) +AMDG+

 

[K_of_A_Director]

OOPS!! That was Pius XII I was refering to in my previous statement. +AMDG+

 

[EnchantedEve]

The Vatican II council was an attempt by the Church to define herself in the modern world. Pope John XXIII was wise enough to see the great changes in society post world war and realized that the Church would wither and die if it wasn’t brought “up to date,” so to speak. Calls for the reform of the liturgy had been around for 100 years prior to the council, many Church leaders, including Pope Pius XII, were in favor of vernacular languages for the Mass so that people would truly participate instead of sitting there praying private devotions apart from the celebration of the Mass. Keep in mind that illiteracy in America dropped below the 30% mark in the 1950’s. People were better educated and understood better than people of previous decades or even centuries the doctrines and beliefs of the Church. Couple that with the post-war economic boon, the movement of many Americans out of the cities into the suburbs and the loss of the previously Catholic-centered neighborhoods and cities and you will see that the great shift caused serious changes in the way the Church was centered in people’s lives. The Missal of Pope Paul VI was, admittedly, an attempt to lure protestants back but the missal itself contains everything that previous Masses contained. Many here grudgingly admit that the documents of Vatican II, read in the constant traditions of the Church, are no break at all with what has gone before. The problem is the “spirit of Vatican II” that has caused the problems.

Some maintain the necessity of a “bogey man” to tarnish the council, such as modernists, liberals, and (my personal favorite) freemasons. The thing to keep in mind is that the Church is here to shepherd souls, not provide some sort of liturgical entertainment. The latin Mass, chant and all associated with it is fine, but so is Mass according to the Missal of Pope Paul VI. And that is what the purpose of the Council was, to shepherd souls in today’s modern world. People may criticize the ways things are going right now but it would be foolish to think that a complete return to the 1962 missal would change the course of things. Society is more influenced by the trash that we see in tv, movies and the internet than anything that the Church does or says (the reality is that the Church is always a target of anger when it does speak against the evils of today’s world). The porn industry is a 20+billion dollar a year industry. Things have been turned upside down since the 1950’s and 60’s; does anyone seriously think that a return to the “old days” will reverse that?

 

[EnchantedEve]

The Vatican II council was an attempt by the Church to define herself in the modern world. Pope John XXIII was wise enough to see the great changes in society post world war and realized that the Church would wither and die if it wasn’t brought “up to date,” so to speak. Calls for the reform of the liturgy had been around for 100 years prior to the council, many Church leaders, including Pope Pius XII, were in favor of vernacular languages for the Mass so that people would truly participate instead of sitting there praying private devotions apart from the celebration of the Mass. Keep in mind that illiteracy in America dropped below the 30% mark in the 1950’s. People were better educated and understood better than people of previous decades or even centuries the doctrines and beliefs of the Church. Couple that with the post-war economic boon, the movement of many Americans out of the cities into the suburbs and the loss of the previously Catholic-centered neighborhoods and cities and you will see that the great shift caused serious changes in the way the Church was centered in people’s lives. The Missal of Pope Paul VI was, admittedly, an attempt to lure protestants back but the missal itself contains everything that previous Masses contained. Many here grudgingly admit that the documents of Vatican II, read in the constant traditions of the Church, are no break at all with what has gone before. The problem is the “spirit of Vatican II” that has caused the problems.

Some maintain the necessity of a “bogey man” to tarnish the council, such as modernists, liberals, and (my personal favorite) freemasons. The thing to keep in mind is that the Church is here to shepherd souls, not provide some sort of liturgical entertainment. The latin Mass, chant and all associated with it is fine, but so is Mass according to the Missal of Pope Paul VI. And that is what the purpose of the Council was, to shepherd souls in today’s modern world. People may criticize the ways things are going right now but it would be foolish to think that a complete return to the 1962 missal would change the course of things. Society is more influenced by the trash that we see in tv, movies and the internet than anything that the Church does or says (the reality is that the Church is always a target of anger when it does speak against the evils of today’s world). The porn industry is a 20+billion dollar a year industry. Things have been turned upside down since the 1950’s and 60’s; does anyone seriously think that a return to the “old days” will reverse that?

I am truly shocked by this statement. The Church of Jesus Christ would “WITHER UP AND DIE!??!?” Wow, the Satan must be pretty powerful if the “modern world” could do what 2,000 years of opposition could not. If Bl. Pope John really believe this was the case, than it really is time to pray for our popes!

Personally, this sounds like a song of surrender, rather than a call to militancy, with regards to the modern world. Only the strength of what we have received from our forefathers will preserve us, not eternal updates and novelties. (Not implying everything post-Vatican II is novelty, just a fair amount!)

 

[EnchantedEve]

I putting this here just for fun and to see what people think.

1. Regarding Obedience
   From the Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911:

With regards to its nature:
“Religious obedience, therefore, does not involve that extinction of all individuality, so often alleged against convents and the Church; nor is it unlimited, for it is not possible either physically or morally that a man should give himself up absolutely to the guidance of another. The choice of a superior, the object of obedience, the authority of the hierarchical Church, all exclude the idea of arbitrary rule.”

With regards to its limits:
“The commands of superiors do not extend to what concerns the inward motion of the will. Such at least is the teaching of St. Thomas (II-II, Q. cvi, a. 5, and Q. clxxxvi, a. 2). Obedience is not vowed absolutely, and without limit, but according to the rule of each order, for a superior cannot command anything foreign to, or outside, the rule (except in so far as he may grant dispensations from the rule).”

This paragraph is in regards to professed religious, however since laity are not bound by vows to their superiors, this goes double for them!

Further it states:
“On the other hand the obligation to obedience to superiors under God admits of limitations. We are not bound to obey a superior in a matter which does not fall within the limits of his preceptive power.”

This is sticky, because one has to be able to interpret whether a given matter is in the power of the person in question.

And finally:

"All authority to which we bow has its source in Him and cannot be validly used against Him. It is the recognition of the authority of God vicariously exercised through a human agent that confers upon the act of obedience its special merit. No hard and fast rule can be set down for determining the degree of guilt of the sin of disobedience. Regarded formally as a deliberate scorning of the authority itself, it would involve a divorce between the soul and the supernatural principle of charity which is tantamount to a grievous sin. As a matter of fact many other things have to be taken account of, as the greater or lesser advertence in the act, the relatively important or trifling character of the thing imposed, the manner of enjoining, the right of the person who commands. For such reasons the sin will frequently be esteemed venial. "

In Summa Theologica, Q.33 Art 4, St. Thomas Aquinas tells us that "if the faith is endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter’s subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning the faith, and, as the gloss of Augustine says on Gal. 2:11: “Peter gave an example to superiors that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects”.

In a real life example, we see St. Godefrey of Amiens, St. Hughes of Grenoble and Guy of Vienne (who later became Pope Calixtus II ) writing to Pope Pascal II, who was wavering concerning “the investitures”: “If, what we absolutely do not believe, you would choose another way and would - God forbid - refuse to confirm the decisions of our paternity , you would force us away from obeying you.” (Bouix, Tract, de Papa, T. II, p. 650).

In short summary, therefore, I relay a Spanish proverb: “Obedience is the servant of Faith, not Obedience.”

1. With regard to receiving the sacraments from a suspended priest, if one accepts the above, than it may follow in the minds of some faithful that the issue is of sufficient gravity to receive the Sacraments from a suspended priest, if they feel their Faith is otherwise endangered.

We see this in Canon 144 of the 1983 Code:
§1. In factual or legal common error and in positive and probable doubt of law or of fact, the
Church supplies executive power of governance for both the external and internal forum.

In the eyes of SSPX supporters, where these is probable doubt with regard to their ordinary avenues of sacramental life, in theory the SSPX could be their valid alternative.
Whether or not they were correct is irrelevant to the fact that they had reasons, however subtle they may be, to believe they were justified and behaving in a Catholic manner.

SSPX supporters could also theoretically appeal to Canon 1335:
“…If a latae sententiae censure has not been declared, the prohibition is also suspended whenever a member of the faithful requests a sacrament or sacramental or an act of governance; a person is permitted to request this for any just cause.”

If SSPX supporters feel they have just cause, they would be justified.

1. Regarding suspended priests, under whose authority.

If SSPX priests, under their superiors the SSPX bishops, are acting under the premise ecclesia supplicat, than their sole superior would become the Church directly, and therefore the Holy Father indirectly. Only laicized priests act as free agents if they perform their faculties. Also, “independent” priests who celebrate the Old Mass would fall under this.

I hope this gives some food for thought!

This originally was posted by myself under another post.

Also, I my humble opinion, yes, the Tridentine Mass would not be an issue, or at least not be as much of an issue, if not for Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX. In time, the Old Mass would have been supressed and eventually disappeared, like so many rites before it.

 

[EnchantedEve]

Abortion is an objective evil.

Apparently, some in the hierarchy do not agree:

traditioninaction.org/Cultural/E014cpBrazilianGirl.htm

 

[cam100]

The disobedience that allegedly took down Archbishop Lefebvre was started when certain Popes disobeyed the binding statements of the previous ones, the Archbishop disobeyed JPII in “operation survival” to keep alive that which never should have been tampered with in obedience to the warnings of those of those Popes of the previous
decades and centuries.

There is no such thing as “binding statements of the previous” popes, when we are speaking of the authority of a current pope. A pope does not “bind” future popes because the power and authority of the Pope belong to the Office of the Papacy, not to the Pope as an individual. The Office cannot “bind itself”. Therefore, while the orders of a Pope can bind all Catholics, a future Pope can modify or abrogate the order.

A Catholic is safe when doing what the Catholic church has always done .(And I do mean staying out of these novelties) +AMDG+

Not exactly. A Catholic must submit to the authority of the current Pope, regardless of whether or not the Catholic interprets Tradition in the same way.