“The bishop receives the fullness of the priesthood, and that’s why he can ordain priests and other priests cannot.”
I understand that.
“But a bishop and a priest are on two different levels.”
That's true.
“Being made an ‘un-cardinal,’ if such could be done, would be dismissal from the heirarchy, because ‘cardinal’ is essentially a title and can be removed.”
That's true, too.
“But being a bishop is something entirely different, and this is the problem in trying to get rid of them.”
But this is similar to the problem with priests. Each is changed ontologically with the reception of orders, whether only priestly, or episcopal.
Whether one is laicizing a priest or a bishop, the ontological nature of Holy Orders remains. The priest remains a priest and the bishop remains a bishop.
The clerical state, however, is merely the fact of being part of the hierarchy of the Church. A priest is part of the hierarchy, as is a bishop. A priest can be removed from the hierarchy. No effect on the nature of the mark on his soul as a result of being ordained, but by being removed from the clerical state, he is no longer part of the hierarchy. Why not a bishop?
There may be some other argument to be made, but I don't think it's because of the ontological change made by the reception of Holy Orders, as all three, deacon, priest, and bishop all are changed ontologically, and that change is permanent and eternal.
“Why do you think there are questions over Anglican orders?”
There aren't really any questions concerning Anglican orders, generally. They're invalid.
And that's because under the protestantizers, the Anglicans no longer intended to do what the Church does, which is to ordain men who in part can offer the sacrifice of the Mass and sacramentally hear confessions and grant absolution.
“If somebody - some dissident follower of Henry VIII - wanted to ordain somebody, he could and probably did. So in that case, the question is about the licitness.”
No, the Church teaches that Anglican orders were not a matter of licitness but of validity.
“Basically, I think the Pope’s fear is that bishops will leave and start ordaining priests and consecrating other bishops.”
Yes, but that's a prudential question. It's not a question of whether or not a bishop CAN be laicized, only a question of whether it's a good idea, or not.
And not laicizing Archbishop Lefebvre certainly didn't stop HIM from illicitly consecrating bishops.
I'd like to see a better reason put forth why bishops can't be laicized than what's been presented so far.
sitetest
Frankly, I'm not sure it's ever been done. Do you know of any cases where a bishop has been laicized? This alone would be enough to stop the Pope from doing anything to them.
However, he could remove them from their sees, and I sure wish he would. But there is always the question of whether they would then set up their own church, which wouldn't surprise me in the least; and in that case, their heresy would be perpetuated.