CathInfo.com

As Bishop Williamson himself knew (he sighed before the answered the question at the Mahopac fire house conference) , they would take his answer and misconstrue it. You can go find the clip online. I think Matthew had uploaded it. And here we are 10 years later, people and other priests are still misconstruing his words and his meaning. It started with Fr Pfeiffer years ago. Every Sunday sermon he would have an eleison comment or something else from Bp Williamson printed out and he would slap it on the pulpit, shake it in the air, and raise his voice, yelling and criticizing him. Why was that necessary?
It's no wonder that good bishops do not send vials of the holy oils around willy nilly. It is a consecrated sacred object.

Sorry, but his answer was convoluted, even if it was misconstrued.  The question of the novus ordo is very complex and multi-layered.  There is no simple explanation and you have to start diving into theology from the start.  Most of the laity can't understand it.  They don't have the educational background.  They COULD understand it, but it involves study.  But the avg joe Trad doesn't have it.

So when these Trad clerics start discussing theoretical doctrinal theories, the answers are ALWAYS convoluted.  Because there is no clear-cut answer from the Church, only opinions.

This is why Fr Wathen always gave the same response, on a practical level -- no, you cannot go to the new mass under any circuмstances.  Not for weddings or funerals.  No exceptions.

It's the only answer that the Trad laity can understand and swallow.  Most don't have the time/energy/capacity to go deeper.  The clergy's job is to make the Faith simple.  The simple answer is -- NO to the new mass.  Anything else is convoluted.

After 40 years, i'd have thought the Trad clergy would recognize this, but they don't.    The whole arguments of "well, it could be valid..." still continue on, and are missing the forest for the trees...

Right, I get that Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko were excessively critical of Bishop Williamson in public, turning it into a vendetta almost.  At the same time, Bishop Williamson should not have punished the faithful that rely on them for Sacraments because of that, i.e. holding the Sacraments hostage to someone agreeing with him ... something which SSPV and some other groups have done, reprehensibly, for some time.  That "sacred object" isn't given for the benefit of Frs. Pfeiffer and Hewko, but for the faithful, and despite some inappropriate behavio on thee parts of those priests, withholding holy oils is a disproportionate response.

I do not agree with +Williamson on this matter, BUT I also think that Frs. Pfeiffer and Hewko should not attacked him so disrespectfully.  They could have politely and respectfully articulated their disagreement.  And then I don't agree with +Williamson withholding the holy oils.  I think there was fault on both sides.

Do any of the faithful feel as I do, the hapless victim of triangulation between warring clergy?  I don’t think the priests/bishops see it that way, rather, they’re defending the sacredness of the Sacraments, however, it consigns the faithful to the place of minor adolescents whose parents have divorced. The judge rules that the child must choose one parent or the other, no compromise considered. Any which way the child chooses, he loses.  Choose Mom, lose Dad.  Choose Dad, lose Mom. He can’t choose both, not even by degrees.  The other choice is illegal, choose neither and be an illegal runaway, subject to arrest, juvie, reform school, or forensic foster placement.  The equivalent in religious terms is worse, however. A juvenile turns 18 or 21.  A soul can die without necessary Sacraments and go to Hell. Or a soul can end up out of desperation in a nonCatholic religion and land in Hell, anyway.