I started to realize that my SSPX confessions were much more efficacious and lead to spiritual improvement, whereas my NO confessions were leading to repeated failure.
Would this not be proximate to questioning the canons of the Council of Trent? This is why I brought the matter of Trent up earlier. Take a look at these canons, following one after another, from the seventh session of the Council of Trent concerning the sacraments:
CANON V.-If any one saith, that these sacraments were instituted for the sake of nourishing faith alone; let him be anathema.
CANON VI.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify; or, that they do not confer that grace on those who do not place an obstacle thereunto; as though they were merely outward signs of grace or justice received through faith, and certain marks of the Christian profession, whereby believers are distinguished amongst men from unbelievers; let him be anathema.
CANON VII.-If any one saith, that grace, as far as God's part is concerned, is not given through the said sacraments, always, and to all men, even though they receive them rightly, but (only) sometimes, and to some persons; let him be anathema.
CANON VIII.-If any one saith, that by the said sacraments of the New Law grace is not conferred through the act performed, but that faith alone in the divine promise suffices for the obtaining of grace; let him be anathema.
Now I do not mean to state that you are in violation, but it can come close if one isn't careful. It must be understood, it must be, that the sacrament confers the grace and has its effect no matter how you feel about it, no matter how good or bad the priest is. I understand that some priests give better counsel than others.
I noted this on the message board and was wrestling with the meaning of this. I did not want to make a decision on the validity of SSPX confession based on feeling.
MM then pointed out that it is not about feelings, it is about discernment of spirits which is different. We need to test things for their spiritual effectiveness, results in our lives, etc.
This was very valuable to me.
I don't know if you are referring to the same person, but someone called Ruination ipa
wrote something very wise in response which is worth repeating:
"I haven't read the SSPX article you linked to yet but I thought I would point out a few things you bring up in the latter part of your post. I noticed you seem to base the efficacy of the sacrament of penance upon the disposition of the Priest and his ability to 'connect' with you (so to speak) when in reality it's just the opposite and has everything to do with YOUR disposition in confessing properly and having a firm purpose of ammendment. Whether a Priest your confessing to is liberal, conservative, or traditional has no bearing on the sacrament; it only will determine what kind of penance or advice you may get - which is important, but it's not the most important aspect of confessing which is confessing your sins to Christ through the Priest."
Then I really studied the Fr. Angles article which drove home the legal construct of common error of law. Then I saw all of the Pre-VCII commentary and even Post-VCII commentary that stood for the very proposition the Society claimed. I then realized the Society was not making this stuff up or looking for loopholes. It was the Canon Law position all along.
But it should be quite obvious that the final result of your studies is that it doesn't practically matter if a priest has ordinary jurisdiction or not. But it DOES matter. Perhaps more investigation is required, if the theory does not fit the facts.
Furthermore Rome has issued no official statement or ruling definitively clarifying this matter.
But it does sanitize these situations, doesn't it? It moves to correct mistakes that have been made in the provision of the sacraments. When some sort of reconciliation happens, it moves to validate. This should also serve as a red flag to your position.
As it is a very confusing matter with millions of souls at stake they would have a duty to officially clarify the status of these confessions if they were not valid. Instead they know the situation exists and are silent.
Millions of souls have always been at stake, and prayer and sacrifices are the only weapons we really have to contribute to a genuine solution. Most of everything else, like the apparent need to even have this conversation, is a wasted effort. People need to obtain the sacraments. They don't have to have them specially packaged according to their own desires. It's a bit late in the game for that now, I'd say.