I have several questions regarding this topic that I’m hoping someone can answer. May a Catholic receive illicit sacraments if that is all that is available to them?  Are Catholics obligated to receive illicit sacraments if that is all that is available to them?  So, if someone had an Eastern Orthodox liturgy available but not a Catholic one, would he be obligated to receive the sacraments from them; so I guess he’d have to convert?  Or would he be not obligated to but permitted to? I ask because I presume that home-aloners believe the sacraments that may be available to them are illicit.  So are they not Catholic and schismatics because they are wrong about those sacraments being illicit or because they do not receive illicit sacraments when they can?

Catholics may not receive illicit sacraments. Under certain circuмstances illicit sacraments become licit however but then we are not talking about illicit sacraments any more.
Catholics may not attend non-Catholic services or religious gatherings / prayers. So you may not attend the liturgy of eastern schismatics.
Of course a Catholic may never convert to another religion since this would be heresy, schism or apostasy.
In danger of death a Catholic may receive absolution from a valid non-Catholic priest, for example from an eastern schismatic.
People don't think that home aloners are schismatic for not receiving illicit sacraments. Home aloners and non-home-aloners have a different understanding of the issue and either believe they are licit or illicit.

Okay, just so that I am clear on this… those who have said that home-aloners aren’t Catholic say this because home-aloners incorrectly believe or maliciously claim that whatever Mass is available to them is illicit?  And one more question… is every Tridentine Mass offered today licit?

I have several questions regarding this topic that I’m hoping someone can answer. May a Catholic receive illicit sacraments if that is all that is available to them?  Are Catholics obligated to receive illicit sacraments if that is all that is available to them?  So, if someone had an Eastern Orthodox liturgy available but not a Catholic one, would he be obligated to receive the sacraments from them; so I guess he’d have to convert?  Or would he be not obligated to but permitted to? I ask because I presume that home-aloners believe the sacraments that may be available to them are illicit.  So are they not Catholic and schismatics because they are wrong about those sacraments being illicit or because they do not receive illicit sacraments when they can?

There are differing degrees of "illicit".  It's one kind of illicit to receive Sacraments from a suspended priest, another to receive them from schismatics (like the Orthodox).  But circuмstances CAN permit Catholics to licitly receive the Sacraments that would be illicitly confected by the priest or bishop offering them.  So, for instance, in danger of death, one can receive from any valid priest, including schismatics.  St. Pius X actually gave permission for Catholics who lived in Orthodox territories that lacked Catholic churches to receive Sacraments from the Orthodox, provided they could avoid causing scandal.

What must be remembered is that the CHURCH decides what's licit or illicit, and has the authority to command the excommunicated, laicized, schismatic, and heretical priests to provide the Sacraments for the Catholic faithful.  And she does so, when the faithful are in danger of death or other dire circuмstances.

Do the circuмstances today permit Catholics to receive Sacraments from priests who are not subject to a bishop without ordinary jurisdiction?  Absolutely they do.  There has never been a greater emergency in Church history.

But one would never be "obligated" to receive them from these sources that would be illicit even in ordinary times.  So, for instance, you would not be required to attend an Orthodox Liturgy to "fulfill your Sunday obligation" ... or your Easter Duty.

This is where Salza's legalism is so absurd.  Certainly, in ORDINARY circuмstances, there's generally such a broad availability of licit priests, that there's little justification for seeking Sacraments from those that are illicit.  But turning this concept of "jurisdiction" into some kind of absolute in its application is simply absurd.

Let's say you were among the faithful in the area presided over by Nestorius or Arius or an Arian bishop.  Would you basically be forced to not receive the Sacraments because a non-heretical Catholic priest who came into your area to provide for the needs of the faithful lacked jurisdiction?  He never had jurisdiction in that territory, nor was there at the time any papal permission for them to do so.  According to Salza's ridiculous principles, you would place yourself outside the Church by receiving Sacraments from those priests ... and therefore at risk of damnation.  Who cannot see the absurdity of this?  ... besides Salza.

What if the Arians had taken over the papacy during that crisis (naturally speaking, there was a real possibility of that)?  Would you then be required to attend the Masses of the Arians and got to the Arians for Confession and the other Sacraments?  Absolutely not.  I have no doubt but that God would supply jurisdiction for the true faithful for the Sacraments.

According to Salza's logic, the confessions that St. Vincent Ferrer heard during the Great Western Schism would also have been invalid, as would all the Sacraments among those allied with one of the Antipopes.

God is not a legalist.  This smacks of the Pharisees like nothing else I've ever heard of.  Salza speaks of "mission," but the primary capacity for "mission" comes from having the Catholic faith, and not from a legality of being in possession of an office.

Pope St. Celestine declared that Nestorius had lost his authority from the moment he had begun to "preach" heresy ... and not merely 3 years later when he was formally condemned.  But, then, did the priests in Nestorius' region who remained faithful lose jurisdiction to hear Confessions and were offering Mass illicitly?  Did the faithful who stuck by the priests excommunicated for orthodoxy depart from the Church by staying with those faithful priests?

According to Salza, Joe Biden and Nancy Peℓσѕι are Catholics in good standing, while Traditional Catholics are outside the Church.

Utter nonsense, and Salza should be ashamed of himself for pushing such Pharisaical nonsense.  And he'll have to answer for all those faithful he may have scared away from certainly-valid Sacraments and remaining faithful to Tradition, and he's likely paying for it now by receiving invalid Sacraments from Motarian or FSSP "priests".

Are Catholics obligated to receive illicit sacraments if that is all that is available to them?
No

...

It's really not at all complicated, it is the dogmatic home aloners who make it complicated. They overlook the seriousness of what they are doing. It is serious because the Church binds us under pain of mortal sin to:
 confess our sins in the sacrament of penance at least once a year.
receive communion at least once a year during Easter time. 
to assist at Mass on all Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation. 

Do you even realize that you're blatantly contradicting yourself here (although in the first part, you're citing Matthew, nevertheless agreeing)?  You usually don't.  That's why things are "not at all complicated" to you ... because you filter out blatant contradictions like this and therefore oversimplify stuff.

If the Sacraments are indeed illicit, then, based on the first point, all this stuff that's "binding" in the second section is not "binding".  First point above is precisely where the Home Aloners are coming from.

It's maddening and mind-numbing.

She asked a clear question, I prefaced my reply with: "Anyway, presuming you are talking about the EO....."

Who is talking about danger of death besides you? Nothing about the pope and most of the jargon you're talking about has nothing to do with it. You madden yourself.

To miss the Mass and sacraments when you are bound to go and receive them when you could and should is a mortal sin. It's not complicated.

Danger of death extends to a period when no priest is available for an extended period of time.

If it didn't, you wouldn't be allowed to go to any traditional priest, not SSPX, not sede, because they would have no supplied jurisdiction.

Danger of death extends to a period when no priest is available for an extended period of time.

If it didn't, you wouldn't be allowed to go to any traditional priest, not SSPX, not sede, because they would have no supplied jurisdiction.

Per Trent:
 "But it is consonant to the divine authority, that this reservation of cases have effect, not merely in external polity, but also in God's sight. Nevertheless, for fear lest any may perish on this account, it has always been very piously observed in the said Church of God, that there be no reservation at the point of death, and that therefore all priests may absolve all penitents whatsoever from every kind of sins and censures whatever: and as, save at that point of death, priests have no power in reserved cases, let this alone be their endeavour, to persuade penitents to repair to superior and lawful judges for the benefit of absolution."

"A non-dogmatic home aloner will go to Mass and receive the sacraments once they realize the situation, but the dogmatic home aloner will not go to the SSPX or CMRI that's only 20 minutes away because they insist that the priest is a heretic, or they are not valid priests, or there are no more valid priests, or it's not the 1931 Missal or whatever other erroneous reasons they come up with."

If this is true, then why do we hold out the Vendee' as heroes for resisted the juring priests in France.  The juring priests compromised and the the people of the Vendee' would have nothing to do with them and stayed home instead.  What about the martyrs in England who wouldn't compromise?  What about St. John Vianney who's family wouldn't compromise?  Archbishop Lefebvre specifically stated that you don't go to compromised masses because you will lose the faith.  He said it is better to stay home and sanctify the day rather than put your faith in danger.