Replies

They [SSPX priests] have permission from their bishops

The Bishops have no justisdiction to incardinate a Priest.

There is a hierarchy of errors; defects, illicit, and invalid. Neither of us has the authority to make the distinction, but as an exercise we tried to give examples of each.

A defect would be a Priest making a slip of the tongue. A defect could be a Priest losing his place. An illicit Mass would be one where a Priest allows dancing, or has a layman give a Homily. A illicit Mass is also a Mass said by a Priest who is a vagus. An invalid Mass is much more clear.

If we take your definition then any Mass of any rite is illicit that in any way is found to be deviating from the missal, GIRM or whatever.

I sense you are trying to make a moral equivalence between attending a illicit Mass held under the authority of an excommunicated Bishop, and a illicit Mass due to error or ignorance.

"The Bishops have no justisdiction to incardinate a Priest."

They claim no jurisdiction. In times of emergency, jurisdiction is supplied by the Church.

"I sense you are trying to make a moral equivalence between attending a illicit Mass held under the authority of an excommunicated Bishop, and a illicit Mass due to error or ignorance."

Nope. A priest who habitually and purposefully changes words, violates rubrics, doesn't wear all his priest attire, uses glass instead of sacred vessels, uses EMHC at every Mass, changes the WRONGLY translated English words to the CORRECT translation habitually, is offering an illicit Mass. Accidentally making mistakes is of course not grounds for being illicit. If a priest habitually out of ignorance makes the same mistakes, it is his responsibility to KNOW, therefore, this does not excuse him.

So, in these situations, I would say there IS a moral equivalency between an SSPX priest offering Holy Mass illicitly AND a Novus Ordo priest offering Mass illicitly, which I still contend, happens at nearly every Parish and at nearly every Mass in the U.S. that offers the Novus Ordo.