Bishop Williamson does not believe that the New Mass is ALWAYS illicit.  As Ladislaus wrote, "NOM is to be avoided only because of the danger it poses to faith, i.e. per accidens even though per se it's acceptable."  This is what Bishop Williamson believes.

I did not see where the Bishop states that the ""NOM is to be avoided ONLY because of the danger it poses to faith", I do not see the word ONLY in the Eleison Comments. He gives it (danger to the faith) as a reason, but not the exclusive, only, reason.

Except that:

1) +Williamson gives holy oils to many priests who probably don't believe in various alleged Eucharistic miracles;

2) Fr. Hewko is the only recipient of this judgmentt by +Williamson (which really means its really just an excuse not to give Fr. Hewko oils, for other well known reasons).

Hi Tony,

I do not object with what you say above, I was objecting with your accusation of Bishop Williamson claiming the he believes that the New Mass is "licit" (in the Canonical sense of the word. Meaning that the New Mass is a legitimate/legal Mass officially approved by the Catholic Church). I have not seen any evidence that the Bishop said that the New Mass is licit (legal/legitimate) although he "does not reject wholesale active attendance at the New Mass".

So we've shifted from the NOM can be valid to attending the NOM can be "acceptable."