My “opinion” is based on the doctrine of the Church which, however distasteful to you, must still be applied, yes, even to the NOM.
You seem emotionally and intellectually unable to digest that, as though doing so would be tantamount to saying there's nothing wrong with the NOM or attending it.
You are an extremest because your mind thinks only in absolutes: Everything is either 100% "this" with no exceptions, or it is 100% "that" with no exceptions.
With that kind of approach you will err frequently in theology (for example, it has led you to sedevacantism).
Feeneyism would also be a likely destination for you at some point.
The above mentioned clerics opinions are indeed based upon the doctrine of the Church, and if I might say, they knew and understood that doctrine much better and more succinctly than you.
It is the doctrine of the Church which leads me to reject the new order because in where it applies to such an deliberate effort to destroy the Mass of the Church it is absolute. You on the other hand set aside the fundamental issues to use smaller diversionary point of doctrine to argue it validity.
You and the Bishop never bring up the problematic validity of Novus Ordo priests or the danger it presents.(conveniently)
Your theological approach to theology seems to be that everything is negotiable, if you prove that a point over here can be true, then point A or B must give way to your theory about the subject. You are very selective as to what you argue and propose, so it always seems to come out in your favor.
I am not a sedevacantist but I am faithful to the Dogmas of the Church in the matter of exclusive salvation as found only in the Catholic Church. It may pain you to know that there are doctrines and principles which are 100% absolute and not open to interpretation or change, but there are.