It’s not imprudent to obey your lawful superior on matters you disagree with him on. Again, you can PERSONALLY OPINE that he is doing the wrong thing, but if you do not acknowledge his authority even when you disagree with him, then you are following yourself, not him.
Where does that law come from? How can two authorities disagree on what is the right thing to do? If they do disagree, what authority do they have to reject the other authority before them?
Their authority does not bind each other. The only supreme authority is the currently reigning Bishop of Rome. Legislation that was passed by former Popes are still validly in force until they expire or are dispensed with, which is why there is continuity between Papacies, but everything – canon law, liturgical rubrics, etc. (except for the Holy Scriptures and infallible decrees of other Popes and ecumenical councils) – is subject to alteration or termination by the current Pope.
Your question is how they can disagree with each other; it’s because they’re not infallible in all matters. Or perhaps something which was timely during Pope X’s reign is no longer timely during Pope Y’s reign, which means the matter has substantially changed between Papacies.
I am not speaking of Tradition here but tradition. Popes cannot bind future Popes, I agree with you. BUT, when a Pope makes a decision, I assume its meant to be a reflection of the truth. In other words, and objective decision. So this truth cannot change from Pope to Pope.
't’raditions only reflect the truth, they are not The Truth in and of themselves. It is not imperative to your salvation that the color of the tabernacle candle is the same as it was a thousand years ago.
So if a Pope in 500 AD determined that a certain act was imprudent and unacceptable, it was also held the same way for 1500 years, and then a Pope wants to change it, there is a problem.
Perhaps the first Pope was in error, or the matter has changed over time for some reason. It makes no difference. If the proclamation wasn’t made infallibly, then it is fallible, which means it is mutable.
The question is not one of binding or loosening. It is one regarding the objective facts. It is more likely that the view held for 1500 years is correct than the one that is proposed now. This has nothing to do with binding but plain old reasoning.
Not necessarily? 1500 years ago we didn’t know the physical age of the Earth. We didn’t have mass public education so that people can read the Bible or Missals on their own. During Trent, it was decided that it was not the time to introduce vernacular into the liturgy – not because it was an objectively and immutably bad idea, but because it was imprudent due to the quibbles over specific terminology that could be distorted in the vernacular. The same wasn’t true in 1965, hence why the Second Vatican Council allowed the vernacular that was previously largely prohibited.