Iohannes is correct. My sister is an actual member of a SSPX group. One may fill one's Sunday obligation there as long as schism is not the intent. Any ligitamate priest may consecrate the Host. However, there is a dispute on whether the SSPX may marry people or hear confessions. All of their other sacraments are valid. The original bishops who started the SSPX were excamunicated by the Pope, however, those who attend their Mass and are ordained to serve the SSPX are in schism. Glad I could clarify.
Another thing to note also when the Society of Saint John Vianney regularized their order with Rome, there was not a demand to rehear confessions, convalidate marriages, they were valid and licit all along. The SSJV did not have to recant anything or alter any position, they were just regularized. They did not recieve stripends for their “illicit” Mass during their “schism”. Bishop Rangel had his bishopric title recongized by Rome even though he was ordained by the 4 SSPX Bishop. Orders are Orders.
As for hearing confessions, technically that is a privilege reserved to the bishop. Every priest who hears confessions must receive the “faculty” from the bishop. But that’s another thread!
An Order is an Order. The Catholic Church still considers the schismatic Eastern Orthodox Holy Communion to be valid.
The whole mess with SSPX is something to avoid like poison. If you wish knowledge here are some nuggets from Holy Mother Church.
The one thing that should be emphasized in this discussion is the extent of the real evidence for the schism. Why would any faithful Catholic even consider attending and SSPX mass? To attend gives assent to schism and to do that leads one out of the church.
This is an excellent comparison. This is a sacramentally valid Mass, but I am uncertain how it would “fulfill the Sunday obligation” since this is an obligation imposed on Catholics to attend a Catholic Mass. If this is not so then theoretically one could “fulfill the Sunday obligation” without ever attending a Catholic Church, but rather attending a Russian Orthodox church, then a SSPX chapel, then some other schismatic group with valid sacraments. I think one has passed the “Sunday obligation” question at this point.
Your reasoning and knowledge of the faith seems to go in circles.
The subject is SSPX period…not liturgical shenanigans of other far out groups. Lets stick to the topic. SSPX would be good if they were true Traditionalists. A true and faithful Traditionalist does not deny the Church’s right to teach and to hold counsels and to change traditions (small “t”). The true Traditionalists in the church, stay in the church and obey. They fight the good fight to achieve a return to the Church’s liturgical roots of reverence and the beauty without becoming schismatic.
And you young whipper snapper may choose your words according to Clintonesq and be dis-respectful of the church and others but then you were not raised in the church before Vat II evidently. Obedience is and was a key to Traditional Catholic training. Something you obviously missed.
Has your mother never taught you manners? Sheese! 
It is my understanding that there is a big difference, i.e. Luther’s teaching was heretical whereas the SSPX does not teach heresy . Rome obviously recognizes this fact in the recent negotiations with SSPX and in the validity of the SSPX Mass.
The Vatican takes a very long time to boot out a schismatic group. They work to avoid it. It’s their job. Luther did not get the immediate boot either.It is my understanding that there is a big difference, i.e. Luther’s teaching was heretical whereas the SSPX does not teach heresy . Rome obviously recognizes this fact in the recent negotiations with SSPX and in the validity of the SSPX Mass.
The *Detroit Free Press * has a habit of dragging out Father Thomas Reese, SJ, (editor of *America * magazine), who is a liberal priest. They quoted him in a couple of recent articles. Why they quote HIM is a mystery – he isn’t local. But that’s the ultra-liberal *Free Press * for you.
Granted Marie, I am not a brain surgeon in fact I am not the brightest bulb out there however for some reason God has given my the grace to recognize truth and sometimes the truth seems harsh. I do not deny that the Pope has the right to excommunicate the bishops of the SSPX and I understand the problem of loyalty the SSPX have. However (as you know ) obedience is a lower virtue than justice and justice demands that one follows God first.
I have to agree with you. The liturgy is a temptation to those who prefer the 1962 Missal but there is much danger in the philosophy of some SSPXers. And while there is leeway to attend on occasion, it is discouraged for this reason. Actually joining an SSPX chapel is a serious matter.
Having been born and raised Catholic,long before VII and SSPX came around, I know the core foundation of a Catholic is obedience and humility and Trust in Christ and the Holy Spirit to guide His church. We know from history and from our faith that those who second guess Christ and His chosen Apostolic successors soon find themselves outside the church. Not having been raised in the post modern dissenting era, I stick with the Pope and the Bishops Christ chose to lead.Granted Marie, I am not a brain surgeon in fact I am not the brightest bulb out there however for some reason God has given my the grace to recognize truth and sometimes the truth seems harsh. I do not deny that the Pope has the right to excommunicate the bishops of the SSPX and I understand the problem of loyalty the SSPX have. However (as you know ) obedience is a lower virtue than justice and justice demands that one follows God first.
Acts- Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than men!”
and of course you all familiar with Thomas Aquinas….
.” Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.”
and so I would be very careful of pointing fingers because you just might poke out your own eye with the four fingers pointing back at you…
What do you think of the FSSP or indult Mass today ? Again, as you know these are a direct result of the action of Archbishop Levebvre. Perhaps this is a case where dissent has or will improve the Church ?