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:
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.
My sources show that Anthimus I was the Monophysite Bishop of Constantinople, not a Pope.
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
Wasn't Felix II the antipope?
All these examples are concerning Monophyste or Miaphysite bishops (i.e. bishops who professed faith other than the faith porfessed by the Church, as established by the Council of Chalcedon).
The authority to excommunicate them comes from the Council (Synod) itself, and the Pope is merely the executor of that authority, which in this case was binding to the whole Church and does not represent specifically any papal power above and beyond any other bishop or patriarch. It merely reflects the authority given him by the Council.
In 1054, which you don't mention, the Pope (who was already dead) excommunicated (through a legate without authority) the Ecumenical Patriarch, and the Ecumenical Patriarch, in turn, excommunicated the Pope. Obviously, the "authority" was there. Whether anyone abided by these decisions was a matter of real power on hand.
To this very day, bishops excommunicate other bishops. This merely means they are no longer in their dyptichs as they are either in canonical breach or are teaching a different faith.