Stubborn, funny you should ask. This person has told me that Fr. Wathen at the 1970 point or so, wanted to consult with same about the Novus Ordo. This person, claiming to always be absolutely against it, claims to have shared that sentiment with Fr. Wathen, and then told me that Fr. went out with a stronger opinion against the NO on account of this conversation. THAT's the kind of "opposition" this person makes claim to - the highest, and from the get-go. So now, this person cannot then nor at present call the NO a sacrilege, but claims to have made an improvement on Fr. Wathen, who always called it The Great Sacrilege?
I have yet to make answer to "the person" on all this, but I think the account above, if true, even, is a presumptuous stretch on their part. Once Fr. Wathen got away from his bishop, he was already fully loaded against the New Mass. The impression of this person was probably Fr. Wathen's humility in putting it forth as "consulting" about the Mass. He was always willing to make sure, or discuss it. But he, as we know, left most in the dust on the subject - and, sadly, obviously, this particular "traditionalist" as well. (Would that all priests had his spirit, and did not equivocate on the subject! As a priest of Christ, nay, successor of the Apostles, does Bishop Williamson ever sound ANGRY about the New Mass, with a priest's indignity who clearly says we must reject it?? How does he know it is valid - it is a questionable point at best!)
Well, I believe the person above attends a nearby indult "Mass." And this person is of the type that likes to sit around with intellectuals and discuss things, pull apart the happenings in the Vatican's political life, be the high mucky-muck sophisticate -- and not first keep to the reality of the current Passion of Our Lord in the New Mass and the hateful atrocities endured in that "eucharist" - just as bad if He is not present, since He is SUPPOSED to be present at a "Mass" is He not? The world has caved in around our ears for lack of the blessings of the True Mass, and because of the egregiousness of the Mass of Man/Novus Ordo which is offered in Its stead - and this person cannot see this awful fruit, this change in the result?? There is cravenness or sophistry in mincing the conclusion of sacrilege. Stubborn, I feel this person would just continue to blow off Fr. Wathen, even after this sermon. Which sermon, by the way, was typical. He never went very long before reminding us of why we were there, at that Mass, and instructing how to cope with both living in the world of the Modern Church, and the outside world as unprotected by the Modern Church. He had a care for his sheep in this way, and by such reminders and instructions did all he could to avoid giving out Our Lord at the Communion rail to those in mortal sin via such a failure: Novus Ordo or Indult Mass attendance.
It is a mercy and a charity to proclaim against the New Mass, and its evil tool, partner in crime, the Indult Mass. This person mentioned above can have some influence over others, and can use prayers, as can we all.