Spin it any way you want.
It still does not get around the fact that when the Pope teaches and writes, either you or you confreres or both, must sit down and decide whether what he is saying falls within the ambit of "tradition" or whether it is a "novelty".
It's at precisely that point that you become the Pope.
My point is that the charism of judging what is and is not in accord with Catholic tradition is not given to each and every member of the Mystical Body, though many, in their pride, think that it is.
How do traditionalists discern the difference between novelty and tradition? Easy. If it has not been handed-down from the past, it is a novelty. No pope in history, for instance, has ever conducted anything comparable to Assisi I and II. That this Pope has done so is clearly a novelty. No Pope has ever fabricated a Mass by means of a committee. That Paul VI has done this by intituting the Novus Ordo is clearly a novelty. The idea that I "become the pope" for saying something so obvious is absurd. Nor do traditionalists invent any truths themselves--they follow practices and beliefs which have been handed-down to them by preconciliar popes and councils.