[kosta50]

at the end of the day, he is bound to his commitment to regard himself as first among equals, not as The Guy Ordained by God to Tell All the Other Bishops to Obey Him or Hit The Road.
Your thoughts?

I am not familiar enough with Papal jurisdictions to make en educated comment. It is my understanding that he is not "first among equals" when it comes to theological issues, as he can proclaim dogma without consulting the Synod (College of Cardinals).

It is also my understanding that every bishop has to be approved by him. Maybe someone more familiar with the Church can explain his prerogatives when it comes to firing clergy, especially bishops. They are all Apostolic brothers, after all and Peter did not lord over any of them.

However, those who oppose the Church openly can be cut off from communion with the rest of the Church. We have a similar case currently with the so-called Orthodox "Churches" of Maceodnia and Montenegro.

Petrosius, care to to comment on this?

[Petrosius]

he is bound to his commitment to regard himself as first among equals, not as The Guy Ordained by God to Tell All the Other Bishops to Obey Him or Hit The Road.

Both of these positions are extreme. While the pope is more than just the first among equals, he is not a tyrant. His position is that of a final court of appeal, not a micromanager lording over those under him. The exercise of any papal jurisdiction is tempered by the concept of subsidiarity: the principle which states that matters ought to be handled by the smallest (or, the lowest) competent authority. Additionally, there is nothing in the writings of Benedict to suggest that he has retreated from papal claims of authority to embrace the Orthodox position of first among equals.

As to the question of the power of the pope to remove bishops, yes, he does have that authority. It is however very rare that it is exercised (in keeping with the above mentioned subsidiarity and also recognizing the gravity of removing a bishop from office). Nor is this authority of recent vintage; it was exercised in the ancient church. I will pass over the examples where the popes removed bishops in the West and just point out some examples where they exercised this authority over those of the East:

Pope Damasus I responded that he had already deposed Timothy when he was petitioned to do so by the bishops in the East

St. Athanasius thanked Damasus for the disposition of Ursacius and Valens and urged him to despose Auxentius of Milan

At the Council of Chalcedon the papal legates invoked the authority of the pope to declare the deposition of Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria

Sixtus III deposed Polychronius of Jerusalem

Simplicius deposed and excommunicated Peter Mongus, Patriarch of Alexandria

Felix II deposed Peter Cnapheus, Patriarch of Antioch; Timothy, Patriarch of Alexandria; and the bishops Peter, Paul and John. These acts were executed by none other than Acacius, Patriarch of Constantinople. Acacius himself would latter be excommunicated by Felix. Although long resisted by Acacius and the bishops in the East, this act was finally and formally recognized by John, Patriarch of Constantinople and the bishops in the East in 519.

Anthimus I deposed Agapetus I, Patriarch of Constantinople despite the later's support by the Emperor Justinian.

If these do not represent the exercise of universal jurisdiction over the undivided church, I do not know what would.

More recently, Pope John Paul II removed Jacques Gaillot as Bishop of Évreux.