Yes, I have a book by St. Alphonsus, where the Doctor says a Priest who tries to just rapidly rush through Holy Mass risks committing mortal sin. Holy Mass is the very Sacrifice of Calvary, the most sublime act of our religion, it must be offered with becoming reverence.
St. Alphonsus says, "here it is necessary to consider what the same Council of Trent says in another place, that the ceremonies have been instituted by the Church in order to excite in the faithful the veneration and esteem due to so great a Sacrifice, and to the most sublime mysteries that it contains. The Church, says the holy Council, has employed ceremonies, whereby both the majesty of so great a Sacrifice might be recommended and the minds of the faithful be excited, by those visible signs of religion and piety, to the contemplation of those most sublime things which are hidden in this Sacrifice.
But instead of inspiring reverence, these ceremonies, when performed with great haste, diminish and destroy the veneration of the people for so holy a mystery. Peter de Blois says that the irreverence with which Mass is celebrated makes people think little of the most holy sacrament. 2 This scandal cannot be excused from mortal sin. Hence in the year 1583 the Council of Tours ordained that priests should be well instructed in the ceremonies of the Mass: For fear that the people intrusted to their care, far from entertaining veneration for our divine mysteries, might regard them only with indifference. How can priests expect by Masses said with such irreverence to obtain graces from God, when during the oblation of these Masses they offend and dishonor him more than they honor him ? Should a priest not believe in the most holy sacrament of the altar, he would offend God; but it is a still greater offence to believe in it, and to celebrate Mass without due reverence, and thus make the people who are present lose their veneration for the holy sacrament ... in like manner, seculars, seeing a priest treat the Mass with such irreverence, lose their respect and veneration for it. A Mass said with rever ence excites devotion in all who are present at it; but, on the other hand, a Mass celebrated with irreverence destroys devotion and even faith in those that are present." (Dignities and Duties of a Priest, p. 220-222)
Regarding the OP, I think it's preferable to always (1) work together under a Bishop, and (2) if possible, seek and obtain canonical normalization. A Traditional Catholic Bishop almost has a right to exercise habitual jurisdiction and teaching authority over his subjects, both Priests and Faithful, and they in their turn ought to give him respect and obedience as their superior and head. So, why should our Traditional Bishops be compelled to rely only on supplied jurisdiction? They are free to ask for OJ from the Pope, as in fact they did.
Agree or disagree, Bishop Fellay said the SSPX now has Ordinary Jurisdiction, after Pope Francis' act in favor of the Society some years ago, I believe it was in 2015. But more broadly, all of us, unless we are Popes, are bound to be subject to some habitual jurisdiction in the Catholic Church. The Faithful to their Priests, the Priests to their Bishops. That's the normal and natural order in the Church. When Priests are persecuted and that's temporarily not possible, sure, go independent. As soon as it becomes possible again, imho, the right thing for an independent Priest to do is to place himself under obedience and subjection to a Bishop. What I really wish is that the SSPX and Resistance will begin working together some day in the future, some 700 Priests under 7 Bishops, all working united as one.