There's something particular amusing in this. I figure you probably won't see it, but some readers certainly will, so it is well worth mentioning. You have here a canon which is quite loosely worded, as loosely worded as many things you might find in the documents of Vatican II. There is no doubt about this. And it's probably not necessarily a bad thing. But whereas all traditionalists would decry the loose and ambiguous wording of some parts of the documents of Vatican II, when loosely written canon appears in your favor, some of you hold it so close and so tightly such that no one would wrest it from you.
Where is the consistency in this?
Laws are framed in general terms because it would be impossible to take into account every conceivable circumstance. The "loosely phrase" assertions in the texts of the Council, on the other hand, deal with doctrine which should be very precise, as such, they are the material cause of error amongst bishops, priests and laypeople. Do you even understand what you are talking about, or do you simply have an agenda?
However, I suggest rather than taking the course of action which seems more conducive to your purposes, it is more rational, more honest to seek the proper interpretation, the one which would be in line with what the Church has always believed and taught. The Church has always taught that ordinary jurisdiction was necessary for licity or validity or both, with exceptions allowed in particular instances. Using a loosely worded canon to draw the interpretation that you can bypass the law of the church for whatever reasons suit your purpose will not pass as a viable interpretation. You may hold it, but you may well not truly have your supplied jurisdiction, and there's no way to be certain you have it.
Do you object because you simply disagree with its application or because the level of certainty is too low for you to tolerate? You cite the "church's teaching" as if a particular circumstance, totally unforeseen by the legislator is an object of teaching. Really, if you want to pass yourself off as intelligent, you ought to begin by making the proper distinctions.
If you had an argument, you'd be able to cite authority for it, but you can't.
My authority has been the Church's teaching on the need for ordinary jurisdiction for licity and in some case validity. What more authority would you demand from me?
The is the standard neo-conservative stance, I've got the Church on my side, what do you have? This is nothing more than rhetoric. Again, you are referring to objectively necessary things with which no one disagrees, rather it is the application of the principle which is at issue here.
You only have your own opinion.
Again, it is you who hold an opinion. You want to believe you are truly the recipient of supplied jurisdiction. I'm sorry, but I cannot tell you that you are. Canon law does not make it clear that you are, though you wish to propose that it does.
What good is the principle that 'necessity knows no law' if we could theoretically never know when necessity has dispensed with the law? Do you adhere to some gnostic sect?
You have nothing but the general rule that ordinary jurisdiction is normally necessary. We already dealt with that. You have no authoritative answer. Just your own opinion.
That's all I need. Logically speaking, as I have said to you and others so many times here, the burden rests upon you. Obtaining certainty on this matter, and trying to convince others of your certainty is all your affair. I have no worries over this matter. I have no issues to work out with myself. I have denied nothing of the Catholic Faith or have rejected none of its canons because I have disagreed with you.
Oh, you have no worries now, because you've consigned yourself to intellectual laziness and security at the extraordinary expense of the common good of the Church, objective reality and truth. Sure, you may not be all too worried now, but when Judgment comes, we will see how worried you really become.
The burden has been shouldered, the evidence is striking and weighty, we cannot help you if you refuse to see it for what it is. Pomposity and willful ignorance make for a very bad combination.