You did blow off the thread. It includes a lengthy discussion on the topic at hand, relevant to the burden you say is on Steve.
It does not require a lengthy discussion to determine whether or not a person seeks to dodge what the Church requires, and upon what premises they wish to do so. It is a rather simple task.
In that thread and the one that lead up to in (in which I was heavily involved) you will find detailed references to the points in question. You gave chosen to ignore that thread, if you have even read through it thoroughly.
I have no problem with understanding what I read. If I know what the Church clearly demands, which I do, what need do I have to learn from those who seek loopholes in those demands? Is it, or is it not the case, that individuals are desperately trying to satisfy their consciences by claiming they have been the beneficiaries of supplied jurisdiction? This is true. I can understand why they wish to be right. It certainly is important.
Beyond that, however, I, nor Steve argue here that your principle is incorrect. It is in Canon Law that marriage and absolution require jurisdiction for validity. Indeed, it is serious business.
Regarding the "honor" citation, I suggest we leave such out of the discussion. Clearly that quasi-scriptural reference does not indict myself or Steve, and may not apply to the point at hand. References should be clearly applicable. When we make vague references it adds nothing to the discussion but bulk.
I prefer to leave it in. Certainly the those ordained to govern the Church have the authority to do so from Christ, and clearly, this matter pertains directly to them and their authority, and by that reason pertain to God and His authority. You, and I, are under subjection to both, and our salvation depends upon it as a matter of infallible dogma. We are in fact bound, and the Scripture cited is a direct hit, quasi-nothing but real.
The Church also supplies jurisdiction in other cases. Canon Law is clear (cf. C.I.C. No. 144):
Can. 144 §1 In common error, whether of fact or of law, and in positive and probable doubt, whether of law or of fact, the Church supplies jurisdiction for both the external and the internal forum.
§2 The same norm applies to the faculties mentioned in cann. 883, 966, and 1111 §1.
It is not the lack of a minister with ordinary jurisdiction, as you suggest. That is partially correct, but the faithful may also for a just reason approach an excommunicated or suspended Catholic priest or even a Non-Catholic priest (cf. C.I.C. No. 844, 1335).
State the conditions under which they may do so. Clearly, we cannot make it look as if jurisdiction is not really necessary after all, so I trust the situations you may present as an example won't do so. Should you present them, that is.
You're general principles are correct, but you are limiting them beyond what the Church, herself, does.
I have not limited myself in the least. The situation is this: others have not adequately established the basis by which they imagine that the independent chapels can operate rightfully under the umbrella of supplied jurisdiction in the provision of the sacraments when there's a priest down the street who has ordinary jurisdiction, the mark of Holy Orders, but doesn't present himself as traditional enough in the presentation of said sacraments.
You have to admit this, Magister, in all honesty: people are seeking end runs around the need for ordinary jurisdiction in the provision of the sacraments. They want to get the sacraments from a traditional priest, and they're trying to mold the principles of supplied jurisdiction around their desires. Now I might be able to sympathize with their desires, but I can't be dishonest and accept their claims over the clear parameters set by the Church.
I don't accept that at all. If the law grants the faithful certain rights (even if they seem like loopholes) then the faithful are entitled to exercise those rights without prejudice.
Give me examples which you think may apply as a case of supplied jurisdiction.
It is not dishonest to take the provisions of Cannon 144 and use them for the good of the faithful.
Same thing here; again, show me how you believe they apply. Specific examples, that is.
If the faithful have a reasonable moral impossibility (even if you think this spurious) about approaching a priest who will not offer them the traditional form of the sacraments, then Canon Law does offer them the right of approaching a priest who will offer them the sacraments. The Law is very clear.
Aha: there it is right there in red. I mentioned this earlier when I said that people want the sacraments in traditional form, and believe that because they rarely have access to them, that this is cause for a situation of supplied jurisdiction.
Remember the Council of Trent. It says two things which apply heavily here, one more than the other. First, that grace comes from the sacraments ex opere operato, roughly put, by the act having been done, such that no matter the form of presentation, the sacrament is the same and clearly the same in its effects. This means that the red text above is not sufficient to bring about a case of supplied jurisdiction. Secondly, the Council of Trent clearly states that the state of soul of the minister does not act as a barrier to the validity of the sacraments.
You're building a straw man and then cutting him down, when you're mistaken about what is actually happening.
It is no strawman to claim that people are claiming supplied jurisdiction where it does not apply.
Were people actually making "end-runs" around the law and "trying to force-fit their own set of parameters" on to the Law, then I too would be unable to condone this.
That's not what is happening.
In order to establish this, you'll need to cite some specific examples of the application of canon law to given situations. Without this, you can't get anywhere at all because what I've stated so far is not in error.
The SSPX has a well-founded position, based on the clear interpretation of Canon Law and its principles over the last hundred years. They are not forcing their own rules on it, they are using the interpretations that canonical experts themselves have written.
My whole point is that this is actually not the truth at all. You know, it's one thing to want to uphold Catholic dogma and to preserve the TLM, two things which have always been dear to my heart. It's quite another to claim jurisdiction by one means or another, set up marriage tribunals, and make claims that to assist at the Novus Ordo is a sin, or to tell someone it's ok to miss Mass on Sunday if there's only a Novus Ordo available. I know too much about their positions. To what end need I adopt them? For my eternal salvation? And at what risk to the same would I adopt them if I already know the way of salvation? To what end?
If you are not willing to read and digest these citations, then there is no point in having this discussion.
I'm not the learner. I know full well what the truth of this matter is. I'm just a simple Catholic.