[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.

[paladinan]

wideawake wrote, in reply to my comment:

[Paladin]
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?

[wideawake]
Now you've changed the terms of the discussion.

[Paladin]
I hardly think so, friend. I already specified "Canon Law" (i.e. legislation of the Church, as opposed to positive Divine Law; it parallels the difference between Church discipline [reformable] and Church dogma [irreformable]), and I think we can both admit that I didn't indend to mean "Can the Pope change the Law of God?", right? I think I've said enough to make my point very clearly, on that idea.

Canon Law is codified

Er... that's undeniably true... but I fail to see how that's relevant. The Holy Father can "un-codify" any canon which is reformable (and there are many such canons which are reformable); you agree, yes?

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

Let's not be silly, here! I already make the distinction between Canon Law which reiterates Divine Law, and that which does not; and no sane person would deny that there exists a distinction between the two. I was trying to avoid the use of the word "mere", as in "merely canon law", since I didn't want to diminish its importance; but I also sought to distinguish between Positive Divine Law (which canon law often references, and even restates) and those canons which are "merely" (though very importantly) Church legislation/discipline.

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.

I sought to distinguish it, not to "disconnect" it (whatever you meant by that). Think of the Divine Persons of the Blessed Trinity, as a randome example: utterly distinct and unconfused, but inseparable.

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

Right... since that's a matter which pertains directly to Divine Law. Perhaps I could have picked a term more to your taste than "pure canon law" (i.e. canon law which can be changed), but I trust my meaning is now clear?

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

[wideawake]
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.

Fair enough; but you might do well to avoid terms like "elected canonical office", since it strongly implies (to the very people whom you're trying to convince) a "we elected you, and we can un-elect you, so you'd better represent our interests!" sort of view.