Valid and Illicit?

Is it possible for something to be valid (a true and effective action), and yet illicit (done in an illegal manner)? Yes, it certainly is. There are a number of things that can fit into this category. When a priest perorms a baptism and yet intentionally skips a few of the parts that he is supposed to include, he does something valid but illicit. He gets the baptism correct, but intentionally changes things for some unknown reason. Priests are told when they can "adapt" certain things, or leave things out of a ceremony -- it is clearly written in the rubrics; to ignore this is a grave sin.

Similarly, there is another way something might be valid but illicit. A marriage where the husband and wife were properly prepared, knew what they were committing to, and fully understood their vows is valid in the Church's eyes. That same marriage can become "illicit" if the husband is a tyrant who cares nothing about the spiritual well being of his wife, and the wife is committing adultery against him. They are truly married, but awfully so.

One last example should suffice. Many years ago a Pope (which one, I cannot now remember) issued a new form of the Daily Office (i.e. the Breviary, or Liturgy of the Hours) to the Church. It was therefore, valid. He declared it so, and it was so. It was also, however, illicit. It had a number of parts that were contrary to the Catholic faith. I do not know what those specific parts are, but history makes this point clear. It was recognized as illicit by the majority of the Church, and subsequently ignored. It was eventually revoked and lost to the trashbin of history.

Just because something is definitively valid does not make it definitively licit. It is possible for the Church to make mistakes in this manner, and this does not conflict with the indefectibility of the Church. It also has no impact on the teaching of the infallibility of the Pope, as that only applies to his ex cathedra statements. There are actions that the Church performs and decisions that are made by the Church that are completely valid because the Church has the authority to determine such. That does not mean, however, that every decision she makes or every action that her ministers perform will always be fully valid and licit at the same time.

To justify something by claiming that it is valid, is not a sufficient answer. Take the marriage I postulated above: it does no good to say that the wife's unfaithfulness is allowable because they have a valid marriage. In fact, the validity of their marriage requires all the more the faithfulness of the wife. If we find something that is valid, but illicit, we must acknowledge the need to right the wrong; what is illicit must be changed so that it becomes licit and true holiness can then be found.

This brings me to a curious question. There should be no question that the Novus Ordo is valid. The Church has declared it as such, and thus it is so. Yet, as many theologians and clergymen (and I am referring to faithful Catholics, not just loony schismatics) have been pointing out over the last fifty years, there are numerous aspects of the Novus Ordo that do not appear to be in full accord with the teachings, practices, and traditions of the Catholic Church; in other words, they have said it is essentially illicit. Much of the Novus Ordo liturgy and the rubrics for it seem to be different from how the Church has understood the Mass for the prior two thousand years. (I know that this may be shocking to some brought up in the Novus Ordo, but the facts are unavoidable.) How do we deal with this?

Is it possible that the Novus Ordo is valid but illicit? The question cannot be ignored.