Plenary powers of the papacy

[Digitonomy]

In Wikipedia, I came upon this description of the alleged Pope Pius XIII’s consecration:

No bishop was found to consecrate Fr. Pulvermacher after his election, and so the latter, purporting to use the plenary powers of the papacy, granted himself authority to consecrate Gordon Bateman as a bishop, and Bateman subsequently consecrated him.

What is meant canonically by the pope’s “plenary powers,” and are there particular examples from the past of what they have included?

Note: I posted this in the Liturgy & Sacraments forum, which covers Vatican rules, rather than the Traditional Catholicism forum, because I wanted a discussion of the legal extent of the concept of plenary powers, rather than a discussion about how crazy some splinter group is.

 

[Spirithound]

“Plenary power” means “absolute power”. So, Fr. Pulvermacher is invoking the Pope’s supreme leadership to ordain Mr. Bateman to the episcopacy.
The problem with this little arrangement is that he’s trying to enter a circle of authority that he doesn’t have the keys to. Observe: the Pope is primarily the bishop of Rome. Thus, in order to exercise the authority of the pope, one must be installed as the bishop of Rome. So, Fr. P. does not yet possess the powers of the pope, which means that he cannot invoke the plenary power of the pope, and since he is not even a bishop, he cannot consecrate Mr. Bateman a bishop, and so he has no one who can consecrate him a bishop.
Hope this answer isn’t too confusing.

 

[introibo]

You’re right. When the cardinals choose a new pope, the elected man, if he is a bishop, immediately becomes Bishop of Rome (if he accepts the election, of course). A man who is not a bishop, if he is elected pope, must be consecrated a bishop before he becomes pope. So even if Fr. Pulvermacher’s “electors” chose him as a “pope,” he cannot even conceivably call himself a “pope” until he gets a real bishop to ordain him.