Herein lies the problem, Seraphina. Bishop Williamson forces his view on no one. But Fr Hewko - a doubtful matter? - charity towards BW?

Fr. Hewko has criticized +Bp. W. online for years now, all stemming from one admittedly ill-timed answer to an elderly n.o. woman’s question at a conference, or maybe it was a Confirmation?  He should have spoken with her privately after the conference.  

In the interim, Fr. H. has increasingly spoken as if he and Fr. Ruiz are the only two 100% traditional priests still standing.  I tried questioning him maybe a year and a half ago about some things he said in sermons and talks online, (nothing about Bp. W.).  He basically danced around my questions, really just repeating himself without an explanation. Some were doctrinal or issues of moral theology, and others were about what I consider to be conjectures, not facts.  
 And now he’s bought some property in the mountains of New Hampshire to open, and he did use this word, a “seminary.”  At first, he said “oratory,” meaning, a house of prayer and catechesis. He says he’s not at all looking to follow in the footsteps of Fr. Pfeiffer by becoming a bishop, but I wonder if he’d refuse if an offer came his way?  The entire matter of his time at OLMC is an issue about which he’s said next to nothing except the once when he made the break.  
Why is it he constantly tears down Bp. W. for non-dogmatic issues while nothing is mentioned about the dubious consecration of Fr. Pfeiffer? Nothing is mentioned about the masses said there by the fake bishop Moran? People went to Confession and Communion, all invalid!  I have a friend who was so seriously disturbed by this, fearing she’d committed sacrilege. She was so ashamed that she felt she couldn’t trust anyone to talk about it and had a breakdown. Her son finally convinced her to speak with another priest. Seeing him required a plane trip, motel stays, eating out, with money she didn’t have.  It was worth it because she’s back on track, but that is truly scandalous.  What of the guest priests with dodgy backgrounds?  
What about the issues with “Pablo?” He offended and scandalized many people, and yet both priests made excuses and allowed him to continue, unhindered.  
I also wonder what will become of his small flock in Massachusetts.  Will everyone drive all the way to New Hampshire?  Will he be able to simultaneously form young men for the priesthood, build a seminary from scratch, tend to the needs of his flock in MA, and still visit elsewhere, CA, MI, AZ, KS, Canada, etc.?  Even if Fr. Ruiz joins him, how will that work?  
At the very least, he owes +Bp. W. a public apology.  
And now +Bp. W. seems to be going off track in his last two EC’s. In the past, he’s never insisted upon compliance with his non-dogmatic opinions or even strong beliefs. But now he seems to be leaning more in that direction. Maybe he’s not thinking things out as he used to?He has noticeably aged physically in the last two or three years and no longer thunders in his sermons. After all, he is, I believe, in his 84th year, by God’s grace. He’s still up and if not running, then walking. Maybe he’s using reverse psychology on Fr. H., British humor that’s not recognized in parts of the US.  (Just like NYC area humor, those who haven’t lived it, don’t get it.  They get offended!  I learned that the hard way in my 20’s.  It got me a failing grade on a project in college, 1.0 out of 4.0, and resulted in a bad performance review and “naughty letter” in my permanent file on my second job in Ohio!)  
I just really hate the in-fighting and factions among traditional Catholics. Catholics have always bickered, but it seems to me it’s getting hateful as out in the world.  

I, for one, could easily understand why God would work Eucharistic Miracles in a Novus Ordo context.

A) I know we Trads like to throw the entire Conciliar Church in the trash can, along with everyone in it, but God isn't so lacking in compassion and charity.

B) More importantly, the precise truth DOES MATTER. It is not just important to do the right thing, but to do it for the right reasons -- or else it WILL come back to bite you, eventually.

The latter point is very deep and worthy of its own thread.

Bishop Williamson does not consider even for a second that the devil could EASILY simulate such "miracles".  

Gratuitous.  Of course he does.

I do believe that IF the hosts had been validly consecrated, however, that God would not permit the devil to tamper directly with the Blessed Sacrament.  So, if in fact the devil simulated these "miracles," this to me lends even greater credibility to the notion that they were not valid.

It's one thing to say that the NOM might be valid, and quite another thing to say that it's "acceptable" to attend it.  I TOLD you that these "miracles" could be construed or taken in a way that people might be persuaded that it's OK to assist at the NOM.  For the devil, it's MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

Loudestmouth:

1) Please cite for me where +Williamson says that because he believes certain NOM Eucharistic miracles are legit, its ok to attend the NOM.

2) Please cite for me an example of any trad on the planet who now attends the NOM because +Williamson allowed that said NOM Eucharistic miracles could be legit.

You can demonstrate neither, and once again (and again, and again, and again), you are not living in the real world.