I find freeper frankbaum's question to be well thought out and excellently posed. This is not about quibbling but you are right that in the eyes of of the Orthodox Church, their 'understanding' is the deal breaker.
Seems to me that its the Pope who appoints bishops, from the highest Cardinal right down to the lowliest coadjutor and he can remove them (or any cleric) for any or no reason or because its an ill fated Tuesday.
Nothing could be farther from the truth!! Where did you get that notion? This week the pope temporarily 'suspended' a bishop who 'adopted' a 28 y/o woman. Notice his immediate reaction was not to remove him. Perhaps this article will update you on how the appointments are made.
Why Doesn't the Pope Do Something about "Bad" Bishops?
The pope appoints bishops based on recommendations. You know only too well the misery we Catholics in Albany have suffered under the RC bishop who has held this office for +30 years.
In the Eastern Catholic Churches, the respective Patriarchs select their own bishops. Out of respect for his petrine office, those names are also submitted to the pope, for his 'additional' approbation. This is a courtesy, not an obligation. The pope, to the best of my knowledge, has never challenged any appointments made by a Patriarch or Metropolitan. My bishop always stops in Rome when traveling to or from Lebanon. The Papal Nuncio was present at his enthronement and read the pope's declaration. The Catholic bishops view this as a great honor and cherish their relationship with both the Patriarch and the pope.
“Nothing could be farther from the truth!! Where did you get that notion?”
Oh, please, NYer. Don’t tell me I have a better and fuller understanding of the ecclesiology of the Latin Church than you do. The pope has the absolute authority to appoint and remove all bishops and even parish priests sua sponte. In fact, NYer, he could remove the Patriarch of the Maronites tomorrow if he wished, though contemplation of the consequences would likely dissuade him from such a course of action.
“In the Eastern Catholic Churches, the respective Patriarchs select their own bishops.”
In Orthodoxy the Patriarchial or autocephallous synods do that. No one plays the role of sole arbiter in Orthodoxy, whether of the whole Church, a Patriarchate or a diocese. The fundamental nature of The Church in the East is concilliar and it is often remarked that the destruction of that concilliarity in those Eastern Churches which submitted to Rome stands as an example and a warning to the rest of The Church in the East of what, among other things, to be wary of when Rome comes courting. It is for this reason that the subject of that Ravenna document of 2007 and the status of the EP at the recent synaxis at Rome is so important to unity on a go forward basis. Just recently I was speaking with a Latin close to these issues and talks who remarked to me that he thought the Latin hierarchy, from the pope on down, fully understands and appreciates the Orthodox position. The problems they anticipate, he says, will come from an uniformed Latin rite laity AND some of the Eastern Rite hierarchy who, rightly or wrongly (I suspect rightly) fear the loss of their positions in the fallout of a reunion of Rome with the Orthodox patriarchates.
“The pope, to the best of my knowledge, has never challenged any appointments made by a Patriarch or Metropolitan.”
If you mean +BXVI, I suspect you are right, otherwise with all respect I suggest a good church history course, NYer. Start with the Ukrainians.