The new mass isn't Traditional.  Whoever apologizes for it, also isn't acting Traditional.  We cannot give the "pinch of incense" to false gods (i.e. V2 church)!  We cannot compromise the Faith (or the Mass)!

Scripture tells us that Almighty God is "jealous" for us.  The 1st commandment tells us to avoid "strange gods".  The new mass is a "strange/foreign" liturgy; it is NOT True Catholicism and NOT part of the Traditional movement.

Good point, CK, Bishop Williamson says here that even if the NOM is valid, it is illicit, and then he gives the analogy of a Satanic Mass and says one may no more attend the NOM than attend a Satanic Mass. That sort of very strong language was the typical general advice given by the SSPX of old, and the sort of advice that should be given publicly, even if one does not have to be very clever to understand that there is in fact a very big difference between a Satanic Mass and many a NOM, not least of which is the intention of any true priest in good faith who offers it. So it was very heartening to hear the clarification from BW in the OP that if he were going to give contrary advice to a particular soul, in exceptional circuмstances, it is something that should be done in private. The other analogy he used in the video you posted to explain valid and licit, that of jumping the fence to steal an apple to eat being valid but not licit: well, in cases of extreme need/starvation, such an action in moral theology is also licit. As BW said in the OP, there has been no change in principle, but he admitted the mistake of giving the advice in the manner that he did.

You are not correct.  There was a change in principle, at least publicly, on Bishop Williamson's part.  He said in that audio that the New Mass is always illicit and that it is intrinsically evil.  Therefore, there can be no circuмstances whatsoever that can justify attending it. 

You are not correct.  There was a change in principle, at least publicly, on Bishop Williamson's part.  He said in that audio that the New Mass is always illicit and that it is intrinsically evil.  Therefore, there can be no circuмstances whatsoever that can justify attending it.

It seems that you are incorrect, as I find +Williamson using the same principle way back in 1996 (and basing it on +Lefebvre himself):

”Q: But does not Michael Davies say that attending the Novus Ordo Mass fulfils one’s Sunday duty? And that Archbishop Lefebvre said the same thing?
A: When Michael Davies says it, it is because he claims that the officially promulgated Novus Ordo Mass cannot be intrinsically evil, otherwise the Catholic Church would be defectible.

When Archbishop Lefebvre said it, 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. The third Commandment says, thou shalt keep the Sabbath holy, not, thou shalt attend a semi-Protestant Mass.”
(Bishop Williamson, Letters of the Rector of St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, December 1, 1996)”

1) Can you explain how +Williamson’s Mahopac advice to the ignorant conciliar woman was any different than the application of Lefebvre’s principle above?

2) Can you explain how Lefebvre can say one can fulfill their Sunday obligation by committing -as you claim- an intrinsically evil moral act? 

Clearly, the Williamson of 2015-2023 is the same as that of 1996 (and the same as Lefebvre).

PS: I’ll let you flounder with #2 for a couple hours, before explaining and resolving your confusion, since this seems to be your foundational error.

How is it possible that the Catholic Church can officially promulgate, and force upon the faithful, anything that is both objectively and intrinsically evil?

This entire docuмent is pertinent, but especially pp. 15-17:  https://sspxpodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Episode36-37.pdf 

It seems that you are incorrect, as I find +Williamson using the same principle way back in 1996 (and basing it on +Lefebvre himself):

”Q: But does not Michael Davies say that attending the Novus Ordo Mass fulfils one’s Sunday duty? And that Archbishop Lefebvre said the same thing?
A: When Michael Davies says it, it is because he claims that the officially promulgated Novus Ordo Mass cannot be intrinsically evil, otherwise the Catholic Church would be defectible.

When Archbishop Lefebvre said it, 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. The third Commandment says, thou shalt keep the Sabbath holy, not, thou shalt attend a semi-Protestant Mass.”
(Bishop Williamson, Letters of the Rector of St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, December 1, 1996)”

1) Can you explain how +Williamson’s Mahopac advice to the ignorant conciliar woman was any different than the application of Lefebvre’s principle above?

2) Can you explain how Lefebvre can say one can fulfill their Sunday obligation by committing -as you claim- an intrinsically evil moral act? 

Clearly, the Williamson of 2015-2023 is the same as that of 1996 (and the same as Lefebvre).

PS: I’ll let you flounder with #2 for a couple hours, before explaining and resolving your confusion, since this seems to be your foundational error.

Since #1 is self-evident, I'll address #2:

Obviously, the precept of the Church is predicated upon the Commandment "Thou shalt keep holy the Lord's day."

The Church teaches this commandment is minimally satisfied by attending Mass, and consequently, if one has attended Mass, one has sufficiently kept holy the Lord's day (notwithstanding extraneous sins outside the scope of this discussion).

Consequently, were it true that ATTENDING the new Mass was an intrinsically evil/immoral act, it could in nowise be excused or permitted, regardless of circuмstances, and consequently, one could not fulfill the precept by attending the new Mass, for any reason.

The sedevacantist says this simply shows the confusion, error, or inconsistency of Lefebvre.

The Hewkonian/Pfeifferite looks past Lefebvre, but attributes the same to Williamson.

I say otherwise (to both):

The word "intrinsic" is inherently ambiguous, as it exists in multiple senses (both of which touch upon different aspects of this question):

1) There are intrnisically evil human acts (e.g., abortion; sodomy; etc.).

2) There are intrinsically evil things in the scholastic/philosophical sense of evil as a deprivation of a good integral to its nature (e.g., a one-legged man; a two-legged chair; a rite of Mass without a proper offertory or reference to a acrificial priesthood; etc.).

The error inspiring opposition to +Williamson (and unwittingly to +Lefebvre, per the quote above), is the conflation of the two senses of "intrinsic," and improperly considering the former instead of the latter.

The SSPX, +Lefebvre, and +Williamson have always referred to the new Mass as intrinsically evil in this latter, philosophical sense (i.e., intrinsically evil as a deprivation of a good integral to the nature of a thing).

Were it not so, +Lefebvre could not say that the ignorant (or those in necessity, per his cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρ analogy) can fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending it, since this would be tantamount to him saying that one can keep holy the Lord's day by commiting an intrinsically evil human act (i.e., a sin), which is preposterous.

Going back to Mahopac, we find +Williamson applying the same principle.

The problem seems to be that the simple faithful, not understanding the distinction between species of "intrinsic evil," rallied to defend a principle Lefebvre and Williamson never held (and scandalized upon learning this, as a result of many years of poor formation, choose to rally around their error, rather than correcting it).  That it was foreseeable such would happen is why I say Williamson was guilty of a minor imprudence.

But the fact of the matter is that both Lefebvre and Williamson are perfectly correct, and if the Hewkonian/Pfeifferites fanned the flames of ignorance and sectarian partisanship to get (and keep) their movements going, the fault lies with the latter, and not the fformer.

When Michael Davies says it, it is because he claims that the officially promulgated Novus Ordo Mass cannot be intrinsically evil, otherwise the Catholic Church would be defectible.

And Michael Davies was absolutely correct on this point, in terms of the MAJOR.  His problem was in begging the question that the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church and Montini a legitimate Catholic pope, and using that to "prove" the Minor.

MAJOR:  Catholic Church would be defectible if it could promulgate an intrinsically evil rite of Mass.
MINOR (1):  Novus Ordo Mass is intrinsically evil.
MINOR (2):  Conciliar Church and Montini promulgated the NOM.
CONCLUSION:  Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church and Montini not a legitimate pope.

We have the ABS ("Anything but Sedevantism") crowd holding it to be dogmatically certain that the CONCLUSION cannot be true.  So they variously deny the MAJOR, or else MINOR (1), or else MINOR (2) [playing word games with "promulgate"] ... ANYTHING but entertain the possibility that the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church and Montini was not a pope.

Sed contra: https://sspxpodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Episode36-37.pdf

See especially pp. 14-17.

Entire docuмent is attached (you must be logged in to see).

Non-Catholic garbage.  It's astonishing to me how many so-called R&R have lost the Catholic and have embraced repackaged Old Catholicism.

Archbishop Lefebvre never denied the MAJOR that the Papacy is protected by the Holy Spirit and incapable of foisting such evil upon the faithful.  Unfortunately, of those who claim to be his heirs and his followers, many of them openly deny this basic Catholic truth, without which there is no Catholic Church.