Just asking out of total ignorance here, does the SSPX ever allow priests to confer confirmation (aside from cases such as danger of death of the confirmand)?

The SSPX bishops don't enjoy ordinary jurisdiction, and it is at least doubtful that they have the power to authorize priests to confer it.  Confirmation conferred by their bishops is obviously valid, in that the power to confirm inheres to the order of bishop qua bishop.

Yes, they do. This is the exact case that I have described.

When this person was doing the paperwork to get married, the SSPX priests realized that he had a doubtful baptism, so he was baptized again, and, as there was no time to wait for the bishop's visit before the wedding, he was confirmed just after baptism by the priest.

Have to give credit where credit is due, boss. You make a decent case here.

So, I'm open to being proven wrong here and perfectly happy to retract my opinion ... it's just that I've not yet seen a satisfactory explanation for or articulation of how this works.

Absolution ->
-- Power of Orders + Power of Jurisdiction
-- Jurisdiction:  Explicitly Granted only by bishop with jurisdiction
-- Jurisdiction: Explicitly Granted by Church Law in specific cases (danger of death)
-- Jurisdiction: Implicitly Granted by Church Law (due to crisis, salus animarum)

Confirmation ->
-- Power of Orders + Power of Jurisdiction
-- Jurisdiction:  Explicitly Granted only by bishop with jurisdiction
-- Jurisdiction:  Explicilty Granted by Church Law in specific cases (danger of death), or Law of Eatern Churches (Eastern Rite priests)
-- Jurisdiction:  Implicitly CANNOT BE GRANTED

So the only difference is we have SOMEthing going on (from those who advocate that position) where the only difference is that they claim that the Jursdiction / Authority / Delegation cannot be granted implicitly due to the crisis in the Church.

I know the proponents of it have used the term "Delegation" to make it sound like it's different, but then what is this "Delegation" ... some weird thing that's in a gray area between Power of Orders and Power of Jurisdiction.  What is that tertium quid that is not EITHER Power of Orders OR Power of Jurisdiction?

Unless this can be explained, I don't know why the authority / jurisdiction / delegation for Confirmation cannot be supplied due to the crisis, just as it is for absolution.  PERHAPS one could try to argue that it isn't supplied since there's less "need" for it, but where is the degree of necessity defined?  Is Confirmation superfluous and unnecessary and meaningless?  Or does it provide great assistance in the salvation of souls?  Since there are SOME Traditional bishops out there, is there no need because, well, if you wait a couple years, you might be able to get on that circuit?  What of those priests before SSPX had bishops who had no access to bishops?  What of those priest who maybe aren't on good terms with SSPX or any of the +Thuc line bishops?  Trying to assert that there's not sufficient "necessity" for Confirmation not only seems rather subjective, and appears to diminish the necessity of this great Sacrament, but it also still doesn't explain any difference in PRINCIPLE to how Confession works (as this is a matter of practical application).

From what I have seen on the other thread, the big difference between confirmation and absolution is that the theology behind absolution has been very clear and precise for centuries, whereas we can see a lot of quotes by pre-conciliar theologians on priestly confirmations and they seem rather lost and unable to explain how this "delegation" works.

The matter seems way too confusing to me. I would not risk getting a confirmation done by a priest if I could get a bishop within a reasonable amout of time.

So, I'm open to being proven wrong here and perfectly happy to retract my opinion ... it's just that I've not yet seen a satisfactory explanation for or articulation of how this works.

Hi, Ladislaus:

Check out the studies by Fr. Belmont that I attached to my previous comment on this thread. One of them directly addresses the question of the invalidity of confirmations from a priest without papal delegation. The other article explains more in detail the difference between a priest and a bishop, who's not simply a priest with extra powers but a possessor through his episcopal consecration of a special relationship with the Mystical Body of Christ that a priest lacks. As a consequence of that, a priest cannot validly confirm without papal delegation.

May Our Lady keep you under her mantle!