The crux:
According to canon law, the Roman Pontiff (nb: a human being) “possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.” 1983 CIC 331. Surely some indication from DeVille that he is aware of this law, and of the doctrinal values behind it, is owed lest he seem to imply that, in establishing Peter as the one Rock, Our Lord invited disaster upon his Church.
Further according to canon law, the College of Bishops (nb: a small group of people) “is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church.” 1983 CIC 336. Again, no indication is given that DeVille sees how Our Lord’s vesting supreme and full power in this tiny group of believers passes muster under DeVille’s supposedly foundational maxim.
But these claims that I have underlined are theological or ecclesial, particular to the patriarchate of Rome, and not "canonical" and certainly not reflecting the canons of the Church Universal.
But the solution to unenforced canon and civil law is not the further and complete ignoring of those laws and the fashioning of new, institutionally unsound procedures resting on fantastical histories and flimsy logic. The solution is the enforcement of laws by Church and State officials and the visitation of harsh penalties on the perpetrators of wicked crimes.
New laws may be necessary. Is the logic flimsy? I don't think so -- more likely than not, they are logically sound with respect to DeVille's ecclesiological principles. One can debate whether those principles are sanctioned by Tradition, but the ecclesiological principles as held by the patriarchate of Rome may be dear to Rome but they are not universally accepted.
