Do you understand that the Code of Canon Law is merely descriptive, not prescriptive, in regards to the Papacy since Popes are not subjects of canon law, rather they are legislators as well as executors and supreme judges of the Code?

Yes, WHEN he is pope. The pope can certainly change Canon Law regarding papal election when he is in office, but during his own election (while he is not yet pope), he has to abide by the Canon Law that is currently in place.

It's also not that popes are not subject to canon law, the problem is more that there's no human judge even if they break it. There are four things above the pope: divine law (the pope cannot contradict a previously defined dogma), natural law (the pope cannot command to sin), the constitution of the Church (the pope cannot abolish the priesthood or episcopate) and the lex orandi (the pope cannot bind people to pray a "New Our Father" that would not be a testimony to the Catholic faith).

So, let us throw a spanner into the clean, totalist vision of a papal election as you advance it -- a Greek Catholic layman is elected to the Papacy.

There are no special laws for papal election in the Greek Catholic Church. Since the papacy is a universal office over the entire Catholic Church (both Eastern and Western), its selection process logically falls under universal church governance, not the particular law of any one church sui iuris. At the time, the 1917 Code was the "universal law", as the Eastern Code wasn't yet codified (and the 1990s Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches is doubtful wrt. modernist influence).

🤣 🤣 🤣

The Eastern Churches had their own equivalents to the Corpus until the 🤮 Eastern Code was promulgated.

The Code (1917 or 🤮 83) is universal law FOR THE LATIN CHURCH. Its canons govern the Latin Church everywhere. Eastern Churches are not subject to the Code and would undoubtedly return to Orthodoxy were the attempt made to impose the Code on them.

Do you understand that Eastern Churches are ... separate, independent apostolic Churches in communion with (not "under" as so man Latins are wont to say) the Bishop of Rome?

Man, where did you study canon law? I am not a canonist, but with 18 semester hours of canon law coursework completed in my lifetime, I am half way to a JCL and consider myself competent though far from expert -- areas of the Code like temorporal goods put me to sleep. 💤

Perhaps you can clarify something for me using your superior knowledge of canon law: What are Eastern Catholic priests doing when they make reference to 'our Pope So-and-so' in the divine liturgy if they are not acknowledging precisely that the Eastern Churches are not merely in some horizontal and not hierarchical communion with the Bishop of Rome, but under him as we Latins are wont to say? Surely 'Our Pope' doesn't mean 'the Pope of the Latin Church, who however doesn't have any real jurisdiction over us.'

Moreover, if the Eastern Catholic Churches truly consider themselves separate from and independent of the Church of Rome, how can they even be truly said to be in communion with the Church of Rome? For the Vatican Council teaches and declares that (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ) "the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world." It then adds that "This is the teaching of the catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation." The Council further anathematizes the opinion that the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff "is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful".

If, then, the Eastern Catholic Churches truly consider themselves independent of the Bishop of Rome, then they not only disagree with the opinion of the Pope concerning the nature of his own jurisdiction, but actually have a different faith than the Pope because they reject a dogmatic definition of an Ecuмenical Council that the Pope accepts, namely the one just quoted. How can the Eastern Churches be in communion with a man with whom they do not even share the same faith? But if they share the same faith as the Bishop of Rome, how can they fail to be under him as we Latins are wont to say, given the teaching of the Vatican Council? It seems that, if you are right, then they are already virtually in the camp of the "Orthodox" (as the Protestants are wont to say).

St. Peter was first bishop of Jerusalem for three years, and then in the year 36 became the bishop of Antioch for six years.  It was only until the year 42 that St. Peter became the Bishop of Rome. And I am not so sure that St. Peter did not send a bishop to Rome to govern things before he arrived there.  So, the question is fair enough, When St. Peter was bishop of Antioch, was he then at that time the bishop of Rome in actu or in potentia?  In theory one could be the bishop of Rome and never step foot in Rome.  And I am still uncertain at what point the Electee becomes the Bishop of Rome.  I think at some point the candidate says 'Accepto' or something along those lines.

This thread has caused me to think about levels/degrees of potency in relation to the papacy, something I did not consider before.

Do you understand that Eastern Churches are ... separate, independent apostolic Churches in communion with (not "under" as so many Latins are wont to say) the Bishop of Rome?

What happens if they -- independent as you style them -- break communion with Rome, or if Rome breaks communion with them?  Perhaps you could share your definition of "independent" with us?  Thank you.