I know what illicit means. I'm not new to this subject. My opinion is just different from yours. Illicit does not mean invalid. The SSPX used to maintain that the Novus Ordo is valid but illicit. They don't really talk much about that anymore. They also used to say that attending the NO Mass is only sinful for those who are aware of its deficits. Sound familiar?
Yes Meg, it sounds all too familiar, and wrong because that idea is altogether absurd. It's ridiculous. There is no possibility of making it make any sense.
For the sake of brevity, it is sufficient to say that the NO "mass" is evil. Within that evil "mass" is the NO consecration. It is that NO consecration (not the NO "mass") which may or may not be valid. It is the NO "mass" that was perpetrated to replace the True Mass, not to worship God, so whatever my opinion and your opinion is is irrelevant, because evil is evil even when the evil is "reverent."
+W views it as +ABL viewed it, if you refer to my post earlier today where I outlined +ABL's words on the subject, based on the study of Sean Johnson on the subject. +W is merely saying what +ABL said. +W is a successor to +ABL. Therefore, he has a right and some might say a duty to reflect the views of +ABL, where he can do so. Those who do not care for +ABL's thought on the matter, whether they be sedevacantists or otherwise may disagree.
Yes, I saw your post what +ABL was quoted as saying, which by any measure is ridiculous no matter who said it. Not sure how he and +Williamson
Whether the NO consecration is valid or invalid, the NO "mass" is still a diabolical evil, this means that one attends an evil service whether or not one is aware that it is evil. There should be no confusion whatsoever here because it is what it is. That the NO "mass" is evil is indisputable because of what it is and has done to the faith of billions since it was perpetrated, and not dependent upon one's idea of what is evil.