[paladinan]

Wideawake wrote, in reply to my comment:

[Paladin]
Er... that really doesn't portray the Papacy (or the situation) very accurately. First: the Pope is the ultimate legislator of the Church

[wideawake]
No, he isn't. He works for the ultimate legislator. There are many laws he is powerless to change.

(*wry look*) I don't know whether you're being coy or serious; of course God is the "Ultimate Legislator", if we want to be pedantic... but I do think you know what I meant, yes? You did catch the part in my next sentence saying that I was speaking of CANON law, not the moral law? The policies by which bishops are handled (i.e. the very topic of this thread) is most definitely a pure case of canon law, not positive Divine Law... right?

[Paladin]
he can change Canon Law with the stroke of a pen, or with a simple decree

[wideawake]
In many cases, this is true. Certainly not in all.

Just for my own reference: when you say "certainly not in all", do you have examples in mind? Specifically: can you name a single instance of "pure" Canon law (i.e. not simply a Canon which reiterates some positive Divine Law, such as the moral wrongness of abortion) which the Pope cannot change, if he willed to do so?

And this is not how matters are traditionally handled, as you know.

I did... and I said as much. But you had said that the Pope was powerless to do so instantly... which is not correct. Say that it's unlikely to proceed instantly, and I'll agree with you; but do not go too far.

[Paladin]
even without touching the canonical issues regarding deposition, the Holy Father could transfer this bishop to Rome in an instant, and assign him a titular see which is vacant (i.e. neutralize the bishop's canonical authority) or demand his immediate resignation, among other things

[wideawake]
Not entirely accurate. He would still have to depose him from his existing see. Bishops who accept titular sees usually resign their previous see to accept the new see. If he does not want to resign and take a titular see, he would canonically need to be deposed.

That last bit is true enough (symptom of [my] typing too quickly, last time); my main point was to counter the mistaken idea that the papacy is merely (as you put it) "an elected canonical office", which is glaringly misleading to anyone who lives in a democracy/democratic republic; you're welcome to call it wildly unlikely (and you'd be right), but: the Pope could abolish the college of cardinals tomorrow, transfer every last bishop to new dioceses, depose hundreds of them with one Papal decree (written or unwritten), and a hundred-thousand other things which would, for anyone else, be forbidden by canon law. Quite simply: the Pope is certainly the guardian of canon law, and he is honour-bound to defend and uphold it; but he is not externally bound by it.

He could, of course, demand a resignation - however this would be self-defeating: the Pope has a responsibility to guarantee all the faithful of whatever station their canonical rights, demanding a resignation without a canonical trial is an extreme move reserved for glaring violations - and the matter we are discussing is not actually a violation of any kind whatever.

First: it would only and possibly be self-defeating in a "pragmatic" sense, not in a legal/validity-based sense (i.e. the Pope could actually do it). Second: I was arguing the theory, not the application (as I think I made clear). The Pope (through the appropriate dicastery) could very easily issue a negation of the Bishop's actions and issue a public correction of the deficiencies in the Bishop's comments (through his vicar general, etc.) and actions--coupled, perhaps, by something to the effect of: "We hope to enjoy your cooperation in these matters, Your Excellency" (i.e. consequences await you if you don't).

Ultimately, I think we're in agreement in the "probably matters on the ground"; I merely wanted to avoid any mistaken impressions that people might get about the Pope somehow being "legally beholden to a legislative process".

[wideawake]

Just for my own reference: when you say "certainly not in all", do you have examples in mind? Specifically: can you name a single instance of "pure" Canon law (i.e. not simply a Canon which reiterates some positive Divine Law, such as the moral wrongness of abortion) which the Pope cannot change, if he willed to do so?

Now you've changed the terms of the discussion.

Canon Law is codified - every word of the code is canon law and no distinction is made between "pure canon law" and some other category of canon law.

By the very fact of its being law it cannot be disconnected from what you are describing as "positive Divine law" or what other jurists would describe as natural law.

Canon 208 can never be abolished by any Pope, for example.

I merely wanted to avoid any mistaken impressions that people might get about the Pope somehow being "legally beholden to a legislative process".

And I wanted to avoid the much more common and dangerous fiction that the Pope is some kind of arbitrary dictator who gets to invent procedure as he goes along - as opposed to a pastor with a well-defined canonical role whose actions and statements conform to two thousand years of Christian Scriptural exegesis and tradition.