Is the "necessity" broadly in place due to the general state of extreme Crisis in the Church or is it situational?

That is the underlying question here.

Is the "necessity" broadly in place due to the general state of extreme Crisis in the Church or is it situational?

That is the underlying question here.

I recall Fr. Iscara telling me in the seminary that it doesn't matter if here and there, there is an isolated pocket of orthodoxy. You are not compelled to seek that pocket (but 21 years later, I do not recall what his rationale was).

Given the Resistance priest is much more likely to be a valid priest, I don't think one needs to worry about choosing SSPX.

What would make a resistance priest more valid than an sspx priest 

So here's a scenario to ponder (thought occurred to me on the thread about Confirmation ... though I've thought about this before).

Let's say that I believe that Jorge is the Pope.  Now let's say that I have two chapels near me, one SSPX and the other Resistance (or Independent R&R of some kind ... not to mention SV alternatives).

Can I receive valid absolution from the Resistance priest when I could just as well go to the SSPX priest?  SSPX priest has jurisdiction to validly absolve (from Pope Jorge).  But the Resistance priest does not.  Why is there a sufficient necessity there for me to go to a priest without jurisdiction when I could go to one that has it?  If I go to the Resistance priest without such necessity, would I validly receive absolution?

Your question implicitly assumes a false premise: namely, that a true, traditionally-ordained sacerdotal priest cannot validly absolve without permission from a Bishop. This is false.

A validly-ordained traditional Roman Catholic priest has the power to absolve normal (non-reserved) sins through his ordination itself. He is ontologically a priest. As such, he is transformed and conformed to the image of Christ. He is not just some employee of a diocese or a groveling subject of "Pope Francis." Although the New Rite priests are ordained to be such (as the words of their rite indicate).

For traditionally and validly-ordained priests, only "reserved cases," as discussed in the docuмents of the Council of Trent, cannot be absolved by a simple priest, outside of a situation of necessity. But very few sins are "reserved" to higher authorities in 1917 Canon Law. 

Given the Resistance priest is much more likely to be a valid priest, I don't think one needs to worry about choosing SSPX.

We're assuming for the sake of argument that they're both valid.  Despite some NO infiltration, 99% of SSPX priests are validly ordained.

According to the SSPX itself, it doesn't matter:

"In brief, as long as the extreme necessity of the individual or the grave necessity of many demands it, one can lawfully, indeed, one must under pain of mortal sin do all that he is able to do validly in virtue of the power of order. The necessary jurisdiction is acquired at the request of souls. The 1917 Code of Canon Law (can. 2261, §§2,3) states that the faithful can "on account of any just cause" demand the sacraments from an excommunicated priest [whom the Church has deprived of jurisdiction] and at that time the one excommunicated, so requested, can administer them. Fr. Hugueny, O.P. remarks that "the demand [of the faithful] gives to the excommunicated priest the power of administering the sacraments."[30] This means that, in necessity, the exercise of the power of order to the full extent necessary is called into act not by the will of the hierarchical superior, but directly by the state of necessity. "The action otherwise prohibited... is rendered licit and permitted by the state of necessity...And Pope Innocent XI, cutting off every argument on the subject, establishes definitively that in necessity the Church supplies jurisdiction lacking even to heretical, infamous, and excommunicated vitandi priests."

http://archives.sspx.org/1988_consecrations_study/1988_consecrations_theological_study_part_3.htm

Typical SSPX self-serving butchery of Canon Law.  2261-3 clearly states the following:

But from a banned excommunicate and from others excommunicated after a condemnatory
or declaratory sentence has come, only the faithful in danger of death can ask for sacramental
absolution according to the norm of Canons 882 and 2252 and even, if other ministers are lacking,
other Sacraments and Sacramentals.

So let's have a look at 882 and 2252, shall we?

882:

In danger of death all priests and bishops, even those not approved for confessions, validly and
licitly absolve all penitents whatsoever of all sins and censures whatsoever, no matter how reserved
or notorious, even if there is present an approved priest, with due regard for the prescription of
Canons 884 and 2252.

Let's look at 3 Canons before 882, namely, 879:

To hear confessions validly it is required that jurisdiction be expressly granted in writing or orally.

2252:

Those constituted in danger of death can receive from a priest, without special faculties,
absolution from any censure of man or from a censure most specially reserved to the Apostolic See

It's rather pathetic that SSPX would attempt to cite 2 Canons indicating that IN DANGER OF DEATH the faithful might seek Sacramental absolution from a priest without jurisdiction.

So the "any just cause" Canon is specifically about the OTHER Sacraments, but then #3 says that for absolution they can only seek out a priest without jurisdiction IN DANGER OF DEATH.  And 2261-3 indicates that the faithful may seek out such a priest only when OTHER MINISTERS ARE LACKING ... which is precisely the scenario presented here, where there is no OTHER MINISTER LACKING (and of course we're not talking about danger of death).

Common error is enough to supply a priest the necessary jurisdiction to hear confessions.