I don't know which is worse, this comment or the fact that it got 3 thumbs up. Firstly, nobody's saying that this is a normal situation, but - newsflash! - we're in a Church crisis that is unprecedent in all of Church history. Secondly, the SSPX "superiors" are as much superiors of these priests as if they had none. Being able to function as a superior derives from the jurisdiction of the Church, period. So there's not a lick of real difference between an independent SSPX priest, a Resistance priest like Father Chazal, or any SSPX who pretends he has a superior.
I don’t know Lad. Maybe, but for those who dispute the legitimacy/suppression of the SSPX, and the subsequent refusal of the Bishop of Freiburg to renew the initial provisional 6-year charter, there’s an argument that an hierarchical relationship persists. Personally, I’m not persuaded by the argument, but the Society has made it for decades (at least as regards the invalidity of the suppression, with the rest seeming to follow therefrom).
That aside, there is a quiet debate in Tradition regarding the extent of supplied jurisdiction, which has not arisen overtly in years:
According to Bishop Tissier’s 1990/1991 (?) study, supplied jurisdiction extends beyond the realm of sacramental jurisdiction, and pertains to all aspects necessary to the functioning of the priesthood.
https://fsspx.org/en/supplied-jurisdiction-traditional-priests That opinion was implicitly shared by Bishop Faure, when in 2015 he “canonically erected” the SAJM. The same might also be backed by Fr. Chazal, who was elected “Superior General” of the MCSPX (but whether this was based on simply common consent, or based on canonical foundation, I do not know; I’m the nature whether there are any statutes or constitutions for the MCSPX).
Against this view is Bishop Williamson, who’s “loose confederation of independents” was formed precisely because he does not believe supplied jurisdiction extended to the foundation of congregations (see his June/2015 Post Falls conference).
Not sure what Lefebvre’s position was on the subject. I know that in the mid-1970’s he received the vows of some Dominicans at Avrille, despite having no authority to do so (this being reserved to the Master General), and said in the sermon that perhaps people will say, therefore, that these are merely private vows, and left the door open that perhaps they were correct. Conversely, the SSPX (before or after Lefebvre, I can’t remember) has a 3rd order, despite the fact that 3rd orders properly only belong to exempt congregations (eg., Dominicans; Franciscans; etc).
So I’m not sure who’s correct, but as regards the transfer of priests, there’s at least an
argument to be made tgat such authority does exist.