This is not the reasoning. I believe I touched on the reasoning earlier, citing the general experience of debate with the sedevacantists as paradigmatic. In debate, it is an oft used tactic to pile on reams of material, stand back and say, read this first. Ah... you didn't address this. You didn't address that. If you allow a person to continue with this approach, the principles upon which the truth rests will be buried, and it will never end.
The two posts I made, with the red type were selected for their brevity. They are short.
All of what has been contained therein has been discussed here in this thread.
You say you have read the FE thread I linked to early on, which is longer than the two posts you refuse to read and respond to.
I have read it. You know I have because I commented on your experiences with confession in various places, and quoted someone here who had responded to you in that thread.
Therefore, it seems you are selective in what you respond to, not due to the length, but due to the lack of counter arguments.
Their content is simple. It reads like this: from the perspective of the seeker of the sacraments, they're safe because they are all deceived. Therefore, they are the recipients of supplied jurisdiction. From the priests' perspective, they know there's a true emergency, and so they act rightly. That's the sum of the argument.
But if one has a truth in hand, none of this is necessary. A case can be argued quite effectively, even without allies or support of any kind save a knowledge of what the Church teaches, with only a handful of good principles in a sack. In fact, it is quite a bit more effective, and leaves one's day more free.
While this tactic indeed saves you time, it is not effective at all and does not make your case.
It is quite effective, and let me remind you yet again: I am not the one with the case to make. My position is simple... that ordinary jurisdiction is necessary to provide two of the sacraments validly, and that in some cases, the Church supplies jurisdiction. It's a simple enough case to make, and it's the truth. You, on the other hand, need to make the case that people can feel confident in approaching priests without jurisdiction because they can know that jurisdiction is truly supplied. That truly is a case that MUST be made, and it is a tough one. You will never reach any degree of certainly unless you simply decide you want it to be the truth.
In following this course you fail repeatedly to address any counter argument substantively and instead only repeat mantras and opinions, substituting those for reasoned argument and analysis.
This is what I mean by simplicity: I have countered you by merely pointing out that the Church requires that priests have ordinary jurisdiction, and that, no matter how you wish to make it appear, you are in fact engaged in the interpretation of canons which allow exceptions for this in such a manner that you or others can feel free to seek the sacraments from a priest without jurisdiction. The arguments for this freedom lie in the fact that some people are deceived
and that there is an emergency situation in regards to the availability of the sacraments. I counter by pointing out that one who chooses knowlingly to seek sacraments from a priest without jurisdiction cannot be deceived, and that there is no emergency situation whereby people can't obtain valid sacraments from a priest with ordinary jurisdiction. I counter by pointing out that people want their sacraments from only a traditional priest, and that they wish to interpret canon law to their advantage. This is not a judgment of motivation, it is what they openly state. That's what I mean by simple, and it's the truth. They think and act wrongly.
I must say that I have discussed the supplied jurisdiction issue with many Fisheaters who disagree with me and came away respecting their point of view because they were intellectually honest and truly engaged the issue.
I once believed exactly as you did and was quite convinced of your position. Masgister can attest to this. I honestly wanted to know the truth and sought it out. I'm not saying you are not being honest if you don't agree with me. But there is a difference in engaging in reasoned dialogue with someone and simply refusing to engage and rattling off your opinion and a general principle as if it settles the matter, then Pharisaicaly claiming your opinion is the Truth.
No matter how I approach people, Steven, they're going to complain bitterly if I don't agree with them of something which is this important to them. If people think my tone arrogant, let them. If they wish to believe I'm with this group or that school of opinion, let them. Let them think any manner of things or complain about whatever they wish, but it isn't going to change the point I'm making to you or the truth of it.
What it boils down to is your methods of discussion/ argumentation are off-putting, ineffective, and intellectually dishonest. I would respect your opinion more if you engaged in honest debate. Instead you choose to hide behind dodging arguments and hurling opinions framed as fact.
On the contrary, I believe the irritation may come from the fact that I'm being more upfront and tossing you more honesty than you are perhaps used to.
Now as for my genuine reasonings for choosing what and what not to respond to, it is as I said above, and it makes sense: this is a supremely simple matter to solve. The only one who demands great study to be undertaken is the one who wishes to arrive at the most desireable conclusion. Therefore, I keep it simple, truthful, and effective.
This premise is clearly false. It assumes all Truth is simply ascertained and if any amount of involved study is needed, then the position requiring it is therefore false.
This was not at all what was meant.
This is what is simple and effective: to say to you that ordinary jurisdiction is necessary for the administration of the sacraments, and to do provide them validly in two of the sacraments.
You and I already know this. Restating this general principle repeatedly, as if it is some sort of revelation, is neither simple nor effective.
My point is that, since this is so, you must adhere to it.
It is simplicity to say to you that, yes, there are cases where jurisdiction is supplied.
We both agree here as well, again nothing new.
My point being, if you are to qualify for these exceptions, you must actually have a genuine situation where supplied jurisdiction would kick in.
That yes, that there people who have trouble with the fact that they are seeking sacraments from priests without jurisdiction.
This is where you are incorrectly speculating as to people's motivations and intentions.
Not in the least. It is openly circulated that people need not fear anything in seeking the sacraments from priests without jurisdiction. Pointing out what is openly promoted cannot possibly be a mere judgment of people's motives.
SSPX parishoners do not have any trouble because they believe they are seeking sacraments from priests with jurisdiction.
Then the case for supplied jurisdiction would be based upon the SSPX misrepresenting themselves. We would have to conclude that the SSPX is actually engaged in deceiving people!
How well do you think this
proposition would go over with the traditional crowd? That the SSPX has jurisdiction because people are being deceived? Yet this is the one situation I would speculate would be the only seemingly legitimate application of supplied jurisdiction.
Otherwise they wouldn't be going to SSPX priests for confession. The thought that anyone would confess to a priest, when they believe the confession to be invalid is preposterous.
They go, I'm sure, because they have been presented with apparent loopholes in canon law, and they've bought into the idea.
That yes it is the case that they have to appeal to arguments based on people having been duped or arguments based on emergency courses of action.
Not clear on what you mean by the "duped" argument.
It should be rather clear. In the material you provided which you claim I didn't read, the case for supplied jurisdiction is based upon people being deceived.
Supplied jurisdiction based on people being duped... and using this as a means of choosing a course of action with full knowledge?
Again you are not clear at all in your phraseology and seem to lack a clear comprehension of the English language, or else an inability to effectively articulate your positions. This makes dialogue with you continually frustrating. Nevertheless, I persevere in fraternal charity.
In fraternal charity, I'm just going to let this one slide... nah, wait a minute:
So you admit that emergency situations in general suply jurisdiction (though I'm still not sure where this is explicitly found in the Code).
Well would you look at that! I'm sorry, I couldn't resist that. Now don't edit that without telling me you did. lol!
It appears that in your mind there is no emergency until Pascendi declares one!
When the sacraments are no longer available from priests with ordinary jurisdiction, I promise I'll be the first to let you know.