But he does tell others they can attend the Novus Ordo. Has he ever reneged his advice to attend the NO in that conference?  No.  Does he still say miracles happen in the NO? Yes.

At best, his position on the "conciliar church" is not clear when he does and says these things.  
 

Read my above post (the one above your post, which I've quoted here.)

Traditionalists do have a common fault, and Tradition has a weak spot. There is a downside to the "Traditional Movement", and that is: a tendency to a "bunker mentality" where you hunker down with your family, get outta dodge, find yourself a Tridentine Mass somewhere, and let the whole world go to hell.

Sorry, but Our Lord can't do that, and His holy faithful Bishops can't do that. Someone has to care about those HUMAN BEINGS with IMMORTAL SOULS who are CAPABLE OF PRAISING GOD FOR ETERNITY -- even if we Trads are saving our own souls by staying aloof from the Conciliar Mess. That might honestly be the best or only solution for us -- if we didn't, we'd get contaminated.

NEVERTHELESS, it doesn't follow that everyone in the Novus Ordo is evil, lacks the Faith, or the whole thing is 100% invalid. +ABL never held this, so neither do I. I believe +Williamson is just following this line of reasoning and this teaching of the providential, saintly Archbishop.

When +Williamson is admitting the Novus Ordo could be valid in some cases, he's being rational, going against his feelings, and practicing "agere contra" a.k.a. doing THE OPPOSITE of what comes natural to him. I know that's the case for me. Everything about the Novus Ordo turns me off. There's not even 1% nostalgia in it for me, since I never attended it. But I'm not going to exaggerate its evils, not even by 1%.

I agree that not everyone in the NO is evil/lacks the Faith, but the NO is a certainly valid mass or it is not.

Even if Bishop Williamson believes that it is certainly valid (does he?? I didn't think ABL believed so), after DECADES of doubtful episcopal consecrations and priestly ordinations, exactly where are the certainly valid NO's? Does Bishop W even advise people to at least look into the priest's ordination and his ordaining bishop's consecration to make sure they were done in the Old Rite?

It seems to me that there is this sentiment of "well, given there might be a NO out there somewhere that might actually be valid, we'll advise a Catholic looking for the truth to attend their local parish".

We are 3 decades out since ABL died.  The circuмstances 3 decades ago are not the same as the circuмstances now.

But he does tell others they can attend the Novus Ordo. Has he ever reneged his advice to attend the NO in that conference?  No.  Does he still say miracles happen in the NO? Yes.

At best, his position on the "conciliar church" is not clear when he does and says these things.  
 

Let’s nuance this a bit:

He doesn’t “tell people” indiscriminately they can go to the NOM.

He tells unconverted conciliarists who aren’t yet capable of breaking away from it what’s wrong with it, but rather than breaking the bent reed, tolerates it their case.

I mean, seriously, is it REALLY that hard to distinguish between the general prohibition, and subjective exceptions??

Moreover, which approach has the better chance of conversion:

Explaining the problems with the NOM, and extending temporary tolerance, or simply forbidding an unprepared conciliarist (who will be struggling to wrap her mind around 20 other related issues, like schism, the consecrations, supplied jurisdiction, Vatican II, etc.)?

For those who would insist upon the latter, go introduce one of your politically correct Novus Ordo friends to The Protocols of Zion, and tell them it’s the truth, and ask them if they believe it.

They won’t get 20 pages into it, before they decide you have a mental problem, and you have lost credibility.

Why?

Because the soul requires predisposition; there needs to be time for reflection, study, consultation.  The terrain needs to be prepared, rather than casting seed upon hard ground.

This was and is Williamson’s approach, and it’s a helluva lot more effective and lasting than what his ignorant opponents are expecting.

Be sure that had he told that whimpering woman in Mahopac that she can no longer attend Mass, she would have mentally thought Williamson was a mad man, and her journey into integral tradition would have suffered a serious setback.

He literally just said the bold this Sunday.

Would you mind to provide a link and timestamp?

“Bishop Williamson conditionally ordains all N.O. priests.”


But why? 
 
In order for a conditional ordination there must exist a positive doubt. And if it’s in all cases then that implies a positive doubt about the N.O. rite of ordination. But if there’s a positive doubt on the N.O. rite then how can Bp. Williamson say, under certain circuмstances, that one may attend a N.O. Mass, since Holy Mother Church forbids us receiving doubtful sacraments.
 
If it is said that that not all N.O. Masses are invalid, then which ones? What’s the criteria for judging? Is it a pure coincidence that every N.O. priest coming to tradition is conditionally ordained, but the Masses of every N.O. priest, who has no intention of coming to tradition, can be assisted at – if one gets something out of it – without any thought to the validity of the priest’s ordination?
 
 I don’t get the logic.

He literally just said the bold this Sunday.

"And he still says to avoid the conciliar church at all costs" 
That's great.  Would he say that to a Novus Ordite now?  Did he address that? It has been years, so maybe he has changed his position.  If he has, it would be great if he made it public.

It would be easy for the devil to simulate these.

How? Devil can only work within a framework of natural law. The nature of those alleged miracles is definitely supernatural.

“Bishop Williamson conditionally ordains all N.O. priests.”


But why?
 
In order for a conditional ordination there must exist a positive doubt. And if it’s in all cases then that implies a positive doubt about the N.O. rite of ordination. But if there’s a positive doubt on the N.O. rite then how can Bp. Williamson say, under certain circuмstances, that one may attend a N.O. Mass, since Holy Mother Church forbids us receiving doubtful sacraments.
 
If it is said that that not all N.O. Masses are invalid, then which ones? What’s the criteria for judging? Is it a pure coincidence that every N.O. priest coming to tradition is conditionally ordained, but the Masses of every N.O. priest, who has no intention of coming to tradition, can be assisted at – if one gets something out of it – without any thought to the validity of the priest’s ordination?
 
I don’t get the logic.

I know for a fact that Fr. Voigt started working with the Resistance before he was eventually conditionally ordained.