I don't know exactly what the legal standing of the Priests are. That is being argued back and forth, but I suspect one side is on firmer footing than the other.
I am of the belief that attending an SSPX Mass satisfies ones Sunday obligation, but the reception of Communion, or any other Sacrament, is not recognized.
Furthermore, exclusive attachment to SSPX is grounds for excommunication without notice (in sententiae).
The indult Mass I attend though is probably due in most part to the actions of the SSPX. Without them there would be no incentive for the Bishops to grant the indult. So possibly they do play a part in Jesus' master plan. But you know what they say about commiting a sin to achieve a good.
But since my Church is right across the street from an SSPX Chapel, I am convinced that people cross the street for Confession and Communion on some kind of regular basis. I hope that the avowed SSPX'rs of FR do the same thing. I think that would satisfy every requirement.
"But since my Church is right across the street from an SSPX Chapel, I am convinced that people cross the street for Confession and Communion on some kind of regular basis. I hope that the avowed SSPX'rs of FR do the same thing. I think that would satisfy every requirement."
Is this a joke or what? But what you say about some 'traditionalists' with a foot in each camp does not surprise me. Some people always manage to be on the winning side in any conflict.
Reception of Communion at an SSPX Mass is certainly permissible. It is absurd to think otherwise.
How can one fulfill their Sunday obligation if, week after week, they don't receive Communion? I have never heard any church official claim that one could attend an SSPX Mass but not receive Communion.