He speaks about the General Chapter around the 20 minute mark.

I think that +W's comments are charitable and prudent. Some here don't like that. Oh well. He isn't going to give up on the SSPX, as some here want him to do.

+W asks for prayers for Fr. Pagliarani. Is that really such a terrible thing to ask for?

Bp. Williamson was, and still is, a cleric whom I deeply admire.  So it is with some trepidation and reluctance that I dare, as a mere layman, to criticize him.  But I cannot help but do so at this point.  What i believe to be a tepid, somewhat toothless, reaction to the recently concluded GC is, for me, very troubling.  To be willing to put money on a dark horse like Fr. Pagliarani, who in all likelihood will pull up lame before his course is even run, flies in the face of sound reason.  +W, by doing this, infuses new life and energy into an organization which does not deserve it.  The good bishop, seemingly, will not allow this fallen apostolate to die a natural death.  He simply re-empowers the obviously fallen and corrupt forces of Fellay & Co.  It is, IMO, a tragic shame.  He should, IMO, help to serve as the organization's executioner, rather than its re-enabler.

I did not quite realize the extent of how broken hearted the Bishop is over the Society's failure and how his hope of rejoining it, is slipping father away as time goes by. He will keep hoping for a miracle. As Matthew says he is one who looks for the best in people. 

I am glad that BW has publicly adhered to the truth of the h0Ɩ0h0αx regardless of that adherence being the mark of his ongoing "excommunication" from the branded SSPX.  A sort of vindication of His Lordship is found in the very pages of The Angelus of the pre-branded SSPX.  On p. 28 of the September 1997 issue in the lower left hand column is found a news blurb titled, "Auschwitz."  It reads as follows: "For years it has been claimed that 4 million Jews were gassed to death at this nαzι cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρ of World War II.  But original camp records released recently by the Russians indicate that the number of deaths at the camp, from all causes and for all races, was more like .1 to .15 million, none from gas."

cf. https://thegreateststorynevertold.tv/official-german-record-prisoners-auschwitz-concentration-camp-may-1940-december-1944/

I think in some respects Hollingsworth is hyper-critical of +W's response to the new superior general.  But his criticisms of +W's leadership of the resistance (or lack thereof), or W+'s apparent pessimistic attitude towards the future, has some merit.

+W is very critical of the sspx and their friendliness with new-rome, yet he STILL will not come out against the errors of new-rome with any finality or clarity.  He still wavers in regards to the new mass.  

"Meanwhile you are not obliged to attend Masses which diminish your faith."  Who defines what "diminishes my faith"?  Just me?  So is the Faith now a personal thing, divorced from objective facts and reality?  

This is a purely subjective answer to an objective problem, which is the new mass.  This is not clear teaching.  This is why the sspx is in its current situation - because they fail to define new-rome's novelties as objective sins against God/Faith; instead the sspx views V2/new mass as "fixable" and circuмstantial "abuses".  They don't call a spade a spade, and +W is still infected with this false mindset.

His hazy judgement of new-rome's sins obviously carries over to his leadership of the resistance, where his game plan for the future is also hazy.  In this, I agree with Hollingsworth's concerns.

Is it really that +BW is “hazy,” “lacks clarity,” and “won’t act with finality?”

Or, is it that your mind lacks the ability to distinguish and nuance without considering such “compromise?”

The Pfeifferites are not hazy.  They are clear.  And they act with finality.

They are are also heretical (no grace transmitted to Well-disposed NOM communicants).

The seeds are clear, not hazy, and have acted with such finality that they have excommunicated the entire Church.

But they are also (at least) materially schismatic, and crazier than rats in a tin outhouse.

The point:

If +BW (and ABL, for that matter) avoid the qualities you would have them embrace, it is because they invariably lead to excess, as in the examples above, while from your perspective they have compromised:

Perfect example of the B&W/either-or Anglo mindset which invented sedevacantism and Feeneyism, precisely for this tendency to mentally plow straight ahead with doctrinal tunnel vision, declaring everything else compromise and infidelity.

Pax-

My numbers will correspond to your paragraphs:

1) No, its a black/white proposal which errs by omitting the gray (i.e., explicit or implicit baptism of desire).  Once again, the same problem: Doctrinal tunnel vision;

2 & 3) On the contrary: Both have given moral clarity, but people did not like the answer.  Here is Archbishop Lefebvre (cited right now over at the MCSPX blog) from his June/1981 conference:

"So, if someone asks me: “I only have Mass of St. Pius V once a month. So what should I do on the other Sundays? Should I go to the New Mass if I do not have the Mass of St. Pius V? ...
I reply: Just because something is poisoned, obviously it is not going to poison you if you go on the odd occasion, but to go regularly on Sunday like that, little by little the notions will be lost, the dogmas will diminish."  
https://www.facebook.com/tlmArchbishopLefebvreSpeaks/?hc_ref=ARQer-5TrWyPaIBuMuyt7XLX1QU7KxCxLhMX4pgnYRURLCOaI5NaK8w0Go3wTb8mKbc&fref=nf

The narrow Anglo mind wants to hear either "I can always go to the NOM" or "I can never go to the NOM."  B&W.  Either-or.  Its tendency is either to consider the objective norm without reference to the subject, or vice-versa.  Anything else is felt to be....."unclear, hazy, and without finality."  That's just one reason there have been no great American (or Canadian) theologians, but I digress!

Incidentalaly, for ABL to hold the position cited above, it becomes very clear that what I contended in the Catechetical Refutation is perfectly correct:

The Novus Ordo Missae isonly "intrinsically evil" in the scholastic/philosophical sense (i.e., missing something proper to its integrity, like the offertory), but (at least for those in necessity or trapped in ignorance) not in the moral sense.  Any other conclusion forces one to admit that Archbishop Lefebvre was still in 1981 urging people to commit intrinsically evil moral acts, which is repugnant to any well-balanced traditionalist.  Only the Anglo B&W/either-or psyche could content itself with believing such a thing, or as "being honest."

4) Then you must also conclude the Dialogue Mass is "immoral," since it too was contrived to usher in the new religion, well before V2.  Personally I cringe at a Dialogue Mass, and refuse to attend one because of this (i.e., I receive no grace, not because it isn't there, but because my knowledge of how it was foisted upon the Church by secretive plotting liberal bishops places an obex gratiae over my soul, such that I do not receive the sanctifying grace which is present.  I just sit there angry, and therefore ill-disposed.
To be consistent, then, you must conclude none of the faithful may ever attend a dialogue Mass (i.e., because of its moral purpose).
Do you?

5) There we are again with the "straight and narrow" (synonymous with the B&W or either/or approach to theology).  Curious what such an approach might look like.  Either sedevacantism or Feeneyism?  Whatever it would be, it would be terrible and monstrous.
The strength of the R&R position which both Lefebvre and Williamson took lays in its balanced approach of resisting errors, but acknowledging authority (i.e., like a chile who is forced to resist the unreasonable commands of his alcoholic father still recognizes his fatherhood and authority in principle).
But to the Anglo mind, this balance is perceived as compromise (or as someone else put it, "hazy, lacking clarity, and without finality."

6) The quote I just provided from ABL shows that it is a caricature to pretend he (or +Williamson) only considered NOM attendance from the perspective of validity (i.e., He acknowledges therein that repeated attendance will have dire consequences for the faith, while also having the common sense to acknowledge attendance at a single Mass will not.
In fact, I have often thought it would be a good educational experience for SSPX priests and seminarians to randomly walk into a NOM every 5 years when the devil starts whispering to them that maybe it isn't so bad after all: It will boost their revulsion for it, and bolster their fidelity to the true Mass!

No, its a black/white proposal which errs by omitting the gray (i.e., explicit or implicit baptism of desire).  Once again, the same problem: Doctrinal tunnel vision;

I don't want to turn this into a BOD debate; i'd rather concentrate on the problems of the new mass, which are WAY more important.  But, if you talk with any qualified and knowledgeable Feeneyite, they will admit that St Thomas and others believed in sanctification/justification for an explicit desire'er (i.e. a formal catechumen who's taking classes).  Further, Trent says that JUSTIFICATION (i.e. sanctification) can be had in the same way (an explicit desire for baptism).  No rational Feeneyite disagrees with this.  ...The disagreement (or rather, theological question) is:  Since the Church (and St Thomas et al are NOT the Church) has never taught what happens to a justified but unbaptized person if they die before baptism, can they gain heaven not having the indelible mark of the sacrament, or missing the sacramental wedding garment, can they obtain the beatific vision?  Or, more likely, would they go to limbo, since they are in the state of grace like an unbaptized infant but not a member of the Church?

+ABL's reply: Just because something is poisoned, obviously it is not going to poison you if you go on the odd occasion, but to go regularly on Sunday like that, little by little the notions will be lost, the dogmas will diminish."  

And I reply that this it utter "situational ethics" garbage logic.  As much as I admire +ABL, I must call him out on his lack of a theological foundation.  He's basically saying that the novus ordo is "ok sometimes, but not all the time."  He's saying it's ok to put oneself into an occasion of sin to one's faith (which is WAY worse than an impure occasion of sin, since sins against Faith are worse than sins against purity).  He's ignoring the fact that the novus ordo is illicit, therefore sinful, that it is PROBABLY invalid, therefore sinful and it's atmosphere is scandalous, irreverent and sacrilegious, which is also sinful.  What theological principles are his comments founded upon other than "the mass is (assumingly) valid"?  His is faulty, erroneous, misguided theology!

The Novus Ordo Missae isonly "intrinsically evil" in the scholastic/philosophical sense (i.e., missing something proper to its integrity, like the offertory), but (at least for those in necessity or trapped in ignorance) not in the moral sense.

Your moral philosophy is deeply flawed.  Evil/sin is defined as "an offense against the law of God".  The mass, being the highest and most perfect prayer, and being of DIVINE ORIGIN, means that God wants to be worshipped HIS WAY, since ONLY His way is perfect.  If something is intrinsically evil (in any sense) then it is a sin.  Ignorance does not erase sin; it does not erase the offense to God.  It only mitigates the guilt.  God is still offended and evil is still committed even if the person is 100% ignorant.  

Example:  A 3 yr old blasphemes God.  Obviously, they don't know what they are doing and are not guilty, but the blasphemy is still an offense against God and the 3 yr old still committed a sin.  Objectively, the act of blasphemy is ALWAYS wrong; it ALWAYS offends God; it is ALWAYS a sin.  Subjectively, the guilt for the sin depends on the situation/person, etc.

In the same way, the novus ordo mass is objectively a sin, in that it is a corruption of a perfect prayer, a corruption of a Divine liturgy, a corruption of catholic liturgy.  It is a sin each and every time it is said, whether valid or not.  Subjectively, God will hold each "minister" and lay person accountable for their participation and acceptance of this false mass.

For +ABL, +W and the neo-sspx (and you and anyone else) to encourage ANYONE to attend it, is to encourage objective sin.  You and +ABL and +W admit that it's philosophically intrinsically evil, yet you tell others to participate in such evil?  What sense does this make?  You are falsely elevating the attendance at a "catholic looking liturgy" as being more important than pleasing God.  You are elevating the action of "being at a mass" as somehow fulfilling the 3rd commandment.  You are modernistically humanizing God and humanizing His religion, by reducing the 3rd commandment to "putting in the time" instead of honoring God by upholding his religion and Faith, which may (contrary to human thinking) be upheld by avoiding a false mass, avoiding sacrilegious and blasphemous "services" and by setting an example to those who are "ignorant" that what they are attending is not a mass.

How are the "ignorant" novus ordo-ites ever to get the message that the new mass is philosophically evil, if people keep attending it, even "trads"?

Then you must also conclude the Dialogue Mass is "immoral," since it too was contrived to usher in the new religion, well before V2.

A liturgy is either moral or immoral based on what the missal says, no matter the intention of the author of the missal.  A valid priest in the 1700s can make a perfect liturgy into an abomination in many ways.  A valid priest in the 2000s could never make the novus ordo pleasing to God.  The novus ordo is inherently flawed and sinful.

A dialogue mass could be wrong, it also could not be.  It's more of a circuмstantial problem, than an inherent one.  The new mass is inherently and ESSENTIALLY different from the True Mass.  A dialogue mass, on paper, is not essentially different.

To be consistent, then, you must conclude none of the faithful may ever attend a dialogue Mass (i.e., because of its moral purpose).

If there was a dialogue mass that was said by a valid priest, but which was notoriously and consistently immoral because of its deviation from the liturgical rubrics and/or any other scandalous and sacrilegious reason, then no one should attend, under pain of sin, for they would be knowingly participating in an irreligious and irreverent blasphemy.  If it's only happened occasionally and the priest has been reprimanded, that's a different story.  The point is, the problem is not the liturgy, but the atmosphere/priest.  This must be decided on a case-by-case basis; unlike the novus ordo.

He acknowledges therein that repeated attendance will have dire consequences for the faith, while also having the common sense to acknowledge attendance at a single Mass will not.

Name one moral scenario wherein we are allowed to do something "once" but not "multiple times".  I can punch someone in the face once, just not 3x?  I can cheat on my wife once, just not multiple times?  I can lie in confession once, but more than that is bad?  The logic makes no sense.

Either the novus ordo is catholic or it's not.  Either it's something we "recognize" fully, or we "resist" it fully.  It can't be both.  This is why sedes rightly criticize the "R&R" view of the sspx.  If +ABL's view had been to "resists" each and every novus ordo, and to resist V2 fully (no ifs, ands or buts), then THAT is the true meaning of R&R.  To recognize the authority of rome, but to resist when they have crossed the line into heretical philosophy - which permeates the novus ordo and why we can NEVER go, under any circuмstances.

SJ:

How anyone like Howlingsworth can come away from this EC proclaiming Bishop Williamson has placed his trust in the SSPX through the new SG, boggles the mind:

I am not aware that I wrote any such thing.  But if some of you believe that I did, then my apologies.