Roman Catholics say yes, we are "valid but illicit." (What a compliment!)
I've heard that "valid but illicit" many times from a variety of people but I've never once seen anyone provide a Catholic document to back up the "illicit" part. (I actually had a bit of a falling out with someone once, when he admitted that he couldn't back up "valid but illicit" but refused to stop saying it anyhow.)
The only thing I can think of is that perhaps the Catholic magisterium figured that "illicit" goes without saying.
Thing is, from my understanding, the RCC(of which i was part of) accepts Orthodox Sacraments as valid AND licit.
Now, one might ask just WHY do we, from the RCC point of view, have licit sacraments, and orginzations such as the SSPX do not.
Historically, we(we=orthodox church) never were required to seek permission from the Pope of Rome to ordain our Bishops. This provides, and is the viewpoint of the RCC, that our Episcopal ordinations are valid and licit. Because of the fact that we have valid and licit Bishops, then the licitly of all our sacraments become licit, because they follow the directives of our respective Bishops.
The SSPX on the other hand, were required to, by roman canon law, to seek permission of the Pope in order to ordain their bishops.. As such, these bishops are illicit, and their bishops cannot grant faculties to their priests to administer the sacraments, making their sacraments illicit, but valid. In addition to this, accoring to Roman law, their Confessions are invalid, in addition to being illicit. Confession requires the priests ordination and the Bishop's blessing in order to be valid(among the other things) and, because the priest cannot validly give that, the Confession is invalid