Receiving Communion In An Illicit Mass

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1289975446' post='2187589']
I was referring to the meaning of the words, one of the definitions of illicit is illegal as well as one of the definitions of Valid is legally sound. Just seems like a contradiction to me, its confusing at the very least.

ed
[/quote]
Websters lists these for "valid":
1 : having legal efficacy or force; . . .
2
a : well-grounded or justifiable : being at once relevant and meaningful <a valid theory>
b : logically correct <a valid argument> <valid inference>
3
: appropriate to the end in view : effective <every craft has its own valid methods>


It conforms to all these things, for though it was brought about in an illicit manner, it is still valid (i.e., "logically correct", "relevant", "meaningful", "effective", as it is truly the Body and Blood of Our Lord).

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1289975446' post='2187589']
I was referring to the meaning of the words, one of the definitions of illicit is illegal as well as one of the definitions of Valid is legally sound. Just seems like a contradiction to me, its confusing at the very least.

ed
[/quote]
The solution to your problem  is  to look at the terms "valid" and  "illicit" as the Church defines them, not the way an ordinary dictionary defines them. 


S.

[reminiscere]

I am not an "SSPX'er" as they are called, but the PCED has stated many times that we are allowed to receive Holy Communion at SSPX Masses, even when we're not there simply because there is no other available Mass. You can proof by doing a simple Google search on this.