1st. Fr. Hewko has done lasting damage to his own credibility (Pfeiffer) so why should anyone care about his opinions?
2nd. Why did Fr. MacDonald think it necessary to even respond?
3rd. Why did you, OP, think it a good idea to post this publicly? Do the sheep really need to see how pathetic their self-proclaimed shepherds are? Do we need more titillating infighting to occupy our time? Is it going to bring ANYONE closer to Heaven?
 

Well I personally found it useful because I was not familiar with the issue and I was not aware of Fr Hewko' s issue.

In the May 5, 1988 protocol that was signed by Archbishop Lefebvre and withdrawn the next day due to the delaying tactics for the episcopal consecrations:

4. We declare moreover that we will recognize the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and of the sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does and according to the rites in the typical editions of the missal and rituals of the sacraments promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.

So the new rites are recognized as valid by Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX as long as they are validly celebrated according to the typical editions. However, to my knowledge, no SSPX priest or publication has publicly said that it is OK to attend the New Mass. It seems that Bishop Williamson and the Resistance faction associated with him are even more liberal with regards to the New Mass.

Archbishop Lefebvre only admitted to validity. Everyone should know that validity does NOT equal grace (see the Church's teaching on attendance at VALID Orthodox sacraments that nevertheless are not allowed).  See also here for how +W and Johnson are wrong on this issue according to Church teaching. https://fsspx.news/en/content/32569

I've been around long enough to recall when both +W and Johnson used to say the opposite of what they are saying about grace in the New Mass. It's actually well docuмented, particularly in +W's case. Maybe the fight has gone out of him? 

Archbishop Lefebvre only admitted to validity. Everyone should know that validity does NOT equal grace (see the Church's teaching on attendance at VALID Orthodox sacraments that nevertheless are not allowed).  See also here for how +W and Johnson are wrong on this issue according to Church teaching. https://fsspx.news/en/content/32569

I've been around long enough to recall when both +W and Johnson used to say the opposite of what they are saying about grace in the New Mass. It's actually well docuмented, particularly in +W's case. Maybe the fight has gone out of him?

Interesting.

I have a task for you:

1) Please quote Williamson or Johnson denying grace passes to well-disposed communicants.  J
ohnson has 10,000 posts on this forum alone, and Williamson has 7 volumes of books and countless internet sermons and conferences, so unless you are completely full of shit, backing your contentions shouldn't be difficult.

2) Please also quote either contending that Orthodox sacraments are allowed (outside the case of necessity).

3) The article you link pertains to the new rite of Mass, not the matter at hand (i.e., the passage of grace to well disposed communicants). 

Interesting.

I have a task for you:

1) Please quote Williamson or Johnson denying grace passes to well-disposed communicants.  J
ohnson has 10,000 posts on this forum alone, and Williamson has 7 volumes of books and countless internet sermons and conferences, so unless you are completely full of shit, backing your contentions shouldn't be difficult.

2) Please also quote either contending that Orthodox sacraments are allowed (outside the case of necessity).

3) The article you link pertains to the new rite of Mass, not the matter at hand (i.e., the passage of grace to well disposed communicants).

I have zero interest in doing your homework for you. If you don't know where to look the sspx archives are a great starting place. You are perhaps new to tradition? Otherwise these requests make no sense. 

But in the interest of being helpful, please see His Excellency's EC #387, in which he states “Take for instance the Novus Ordo Mass. The New Rite as a whole so diminishes the expression of essential Catholic truths...that it is as a whole so bad that no priest should use it, nor Catholic attend it. ... f I say that the new Mass must always be avoided, I am telling the truth ....” 

But even more plainly said by His Excellency was in a recording wherein he notes that while valid it is ILLICIT. Nothing illicit can give grace. He calls the New Mass "intrinsically evil" and that we must not attend. https://youtu.be/f0gV0qyZN50

The new Rite of Mass is evil according to His Excellency. Also according to Trent. Also according to +Lefebvre. 

There is no defense for His Excellency's change of mind on this subject. He is too well educated and too well-formed to make this mistake. Either he was lying before when he said to the avoid the New Mass or he is lying now saying people can attend. But no man can serve two masters as Vigano says with respect to the New Mass and the Old Mass.

  Either he was lying before when he said to the avoid the New Mass or he is lying now saying people can attend.

AFAIK +Williamson has never been omniscient, so he may have simply changed his mind. I disagree with HE's opinion on this, and other things, but I would be cautious in declaring him to be mendacious.

Most of this post is stuck in the same rut: Hewko discussing the rite, where Johnson is discussing the passage of grace.

It begins by quoting Williamson saying the new Mass must always be avoided, but overlooks qualifying that remark with the objective-subjective distinction (i.e., nobody should go to it, but there can be subjective reasons which permit it), as it necessarily must.

Let's let Greg Taylor explain it to us by quoting...Bishop Williamson (1996, nearly 20 years before Mahopac):

"When Archbishop Lefebvre said it [i.e., that Catholics can satisfy the Sunday obligation by attending the new Mass], he meant that the Novus Ordo Mass is objectively and intrinsically evil, but Catholics unaware of, or disbelieving in, that evil, because of the rite’s official promulgation, may subjectively fulfil their Sunday duty by attending the new Mass.”
https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=4402

What could be clearer?

We have Taylor quote mining in an attempt to highlight an alleged contradiction betwen Williamson and Lefebvre, but he ends up vindicating Williamson unwittingly, by explaining Williamson and Lefebvre see it the same way, per Williamson's 1996 explanation.

The post mentions grace once, but immediately conflates it with the rite (yet again), calling it "illicit," and concluding that "nothing illicit can give grace."  Need I point out ad nauseum that Johnson is speaking of the sacrament, while you continually lapse back to speaking of the rite?

Do you think Vigano believes noconciliarists receive grace from Holy Communion?

Good catch: How was that woman in Mahopac not among those who are "unaware of, or disbelieving in, that evil, because of the rite’s official promulgation?"

If so, subjectively she would be among those fulfilling their Sunday obligation at the new Mass, and retaining her good disposition, would receive an increase of sanctifyin grace at Holy Communion.

I'm not seeing the problem (unless like the other post states, this is a manufactured confusion erected to divide the resistance by playing upon the unlettered ignorance of the faithful, some of whom have bought into the ruse).

Good catch: How was that woman in Mahopac not among those who are "unaware of, or disbelieving in, that evil, because of the rite’s official promulgation?"

If so, subjectively she would be among those fulfilling their Sunday obligation at the new Mass, and retaining her good disposition, would receive an increase of sanctifyin grace at Holy Communion.

I'm not seeing the problem (unless like the other post states, this is a manufactured confusion erected to divide the resistance by playing upon the unlettered ignorance of the faithful, some of whom have bought into the ruse).

I stand to be corrected but in the video didn't the woman ask about Novus Ordo Masses only during the week and elsewhere, that she was well aware of the Traditional Mass? If so, that plainly shows that she was not ignorant of the true Mass.