I found it Myrna, but unfortunately your scans are missing from the text of your post.  I can only surmise that when Matthew went to the new platform(?) it got lost somehow.
https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/salvation/msg308708/#msg308708

Okay,  thank you so much, it is good to know that it is still there.  

Only if you believe in the notion of partial Communion.  All we have in concession by Francis, for the good of the faithful, to give jurisdiction to their Confession and some marriages.

I mean... anyone from a diocesan parish can show up at the SSPX and receive communion from her priests.  And anyone from the SSPX could show up at a diocesan parish and commune if they wanted to.

This is explicitly different from, say, the SSPV, where the SSPV has stringent requirements to receive communion besides just being Catholic.  The SSPV is *not* in communion with Rome (I'm just describing the facts here, not making a moral judgment.)

Rome has also explicitly said Catholics are allowed to attend SSPX chapels (they discourage it, but do not disallow it), and has explicitly authorized confessions and marriages.  The main thing I guess would be whether SSPX *priests* are actually allowed to say mass.  They're clearly Catholic, but if you wanted to make the "Rome is definitively right" argument, you could make the argument that the priests themselves aren't allowed to offer the masses, Rome not having said otherwise explicitly or clearly.

I think there's good evidence, for what its worth, that Rome tacitly allowed SSPX confessions pre 2016: https://onepeterfive.com/fact-checking-certain-claims-about-the-sspx/?fbclid=IwAR0A5cAwNLAnl7PrpFYJgjTdg5f8Kd70Yd80b8L_4tg8k6ZtOWl1LErl1pI

As an aside, if partial communion can *never* be a thing, I'm curious how you'd explain the melatian schism?  (If you actually know what I'm asking about here, this is something I learned about fairly recently in church history.)

Leaving that tangent aside, I can understand if you're a Sedevacantist looking at the above and being like "well this isn't how ecclesiology is supposed to work, so *both* modern Rome and the SSPX are "breaking the rules so to speak."  I can also see the various forms of the "infallible safety" arguments being used against certain doctrinal positions of the SSPX, though I'm not sure those claims are actually provable.  But I don't see how you can meaningfully argue the SSPX is in schism.  I know Voris and Burke try to argue this and they seem to go against Rome by doing so even while they chastize the SSPX for being disobedient, and that combination doesn't make a whole lot of sense IMO