But I think the question is whether Anthony Padua can impose this on the consciences of others who for whatever reason have not come to the SV conclusion. Of course, the answer is no, that we can't bind the consciences of others. Whether those consciences are confused vs. properly formed is a different matter, and the best one can do is attempt to persuade them.
This is an incredibly common strawman. We're not binding anyone, we're pointing out what the Church has bound everyone to. Are you "binding consciences" when you tell adulterers or non-Catholics not to receive Holy Communion? No? Well, the Vatican II sect teaches both of those are OK, so they're free to disagree, right? Wrong!
Whether or not the Novus Ordite is sinning in some particular instance of following Novus Ordo teaching is irrelevant - while they submit to the antipopes they are lead to sin. It must be stressed that what they're doing is objectively wrong and they should be convinced to follow Catholic discipline and teaching.
If someone is following the 1 hour fast that stems from their fundamental acceptance of the Vatican II religion. The issue should be dealt with at the root, not at the surface level of why it's better to fast longer.
It's pointless to try to convince someone to fast three hours instead of one if they're running headlong into Hell under the guidance of Bergoglio.
Also, ignorance is not always an excuse:
The Errors of Peter Abelard, Condemned by Innocent II, July 16, 1140, #10: “That they have not sinned who being ignorant have crucified Christ, and that whatever is done through ignorance must not be considered sin.” ‐ Condemned