"The nature of the error of integrism is overemphasizing every defect in a Mass."
Really? Then the Pope, current and past, and the GIRM and bishops who actually try to enforce them are "integrists." This is ridiculous.
"Not every error or defect in the Mass makes it illicit. It is not illicit, but is defective, if the Priest stumbles on a word. If they introduce unauthorized stupid and annoying "innovations"; then you are right there are defects that make for doubtful licitness of that Mass."
Really? Do you have a list of hierarchy for all of us? I have never heard of these distinctions before. Can you cite them? How about this one? A priest makes one or two little changes such as "My sacrifice and yours" when the Missal says "may our sacrifice". He is technically correct because that is the way the Latin reads, BUT the English translation, being corrupt, requires that he say the wrong thing. But he is not obeying the GIRM nor the Missal? I would argue it is illicit. This is the problem the stupid ICEL people, bishops and Vatican who approved it, put the priests in.
"If those are illicit or not depends on the intention of the person making the error."
Absolutely not.
"A defect introduced because a Priest was ordered to do so by his Ordinary, even those that may have been banned by the Holy See, calls into question if that Mass was licit or illicit."
What?
"Your limb is kinda broken off, but I understand your point."
I never implied nor said any such thing. Re-read the posts. I said nearly every Novus Ordo Mass celebrated in the U.S. even by conservative priests by conservative bishops was illicit. I NEVER said anything about invalid. You read that into my words.
"You implied that by using the Novus Ordo Mass in particular, that makes a Mass invalid."
??????? Show me where. Read my posts. Word search on my name. You are wrong.
"Now if the nature of the illicit Mass is intentional, as is a Mass at a SSPX Chapel, any reasonable person could agree that is more serious."
The SSPX argues it is providing Masses for laymen who ask for them (which is correct because if there were no requests by laymen, they wouldn't be there)due to an emergency situation in the Church. If bishops would be "wide and generous" in the application of the indult, then many SSPX chapels would not exist. Why not come down on all the Eastern Orthodox churches which open up in the same areas as Catholic churches. They should be "warned against" by the bishop and pastors as well, don't you think?
"You are correct in most cases the Priest is validly ordained, but suspended, and in many cases operates without oversight. This intentional defect makes every Mass of the SSPX illicit."
They have permission from their bishops. This is not an "intentional" defect.
"An invalid Mass would be one where the Mass was confected by a Woman, who could not be ordained. Using foreign matter, like honey bread, would cause this to be invalid. Consecrating Grape Juice causes an invalid Mass. Another example is omitting consecration, omitting readings, or omitting other essential elements also invalidate the Mass."
Form, matter and intention. I never said anything about Novus Ordo masses being invalid, although my confirmation Mass in the late '70s and our nuptial mass were both invalid. So I know there have been at least two.
I do not know of any Traditional Latin Masses that have been suspected of being invalid. Perhaps there have been some, but I have never seen it reported.