Obviously, it is very practical, given the first part of your next statement and the fact that we are liturgically and theologically stable.
"The Orthodox have that structure, and they bicker back and forth and have different rules depending on which patriarchy you would find yourself in."
I will be the last to deny that Orthodox are prone to bickering about things, but as our priest has said, we're so busy arguing over how many sitchera to sing at "Lord, I have cried..." at Vespers that we'll never get far enough down the list to get to gay marriage and women priests. I have spoken before of the "peer pressure" within Orthodoxy to keep the traditions of the Church: pressure of laity on clergy, pressure of clergy on bishops, bishops on each other, etc...
It really is true. For us, tradition is a very living thing, but the movement is always one of moving forward by continually returning to traditional roots.
"There is so much instability right now. It would be a grand concession to the Orthodox, but it could throw catholicism around the world into total chaos."
I'd be surprised if then Cardinal Ratzinger was viewing this as merely a concession to the Orthodox. He seems rather in his statements to indicate that he first and foremost thinks it would be healthy for the West itself.
I think that there is a lot of truth to the statement that it could lead to chaos right now, and AlbionGirl's comments on the condition of her diocese backs that up. My own observations of the RC dioceses in some of the places where I have lived are that things would really spin out of control with any kind of autonomy.
But that doesn't make the centralized, top-down structure of Roman Catholicism healthy. My own opinion is that it is this centralization that allowed the current rot. The lack of a sense on the part of the vast majority Roman Catholics that they personally were responsible for defending the faith, even against their own bishops and Popes, was devastating. I have often quoted this from then Cardinal Ratzinger, who seems to understand this:
After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council. Eventually, the idea of the givenness of the liturgy, the fact that one cannot do with it what one will, faded from the public consciousness of the West.
This is important from an Orthodox perspective, because the liturgical services of the Church are a primary means of shaping our faith and morals. Change the Liturgy, and one changes the faith -- at least eventually. In the RC church, the Liturgy has not played this role to such an extensive degree, and instead has relied heavily on the formal teachings and declarations of the Magesterium.
What the modern Roman church is discovering, however, is that the Vatican can talk until it is blue in the face about the teachings of the Magesterium, but if it is not backed up by liturgical life, it simply doesn't stick. The people in America poured out to big stadiums to treat JPII like a rock star, but they roundly ignored what he had to say on moral matters, if polling data is to be believed.
B16 would seem to understand that his church needs to reconnect with the ancient tradition (and his writings indicate that the Tridentine church was every bit as much in need of such a reconnection and reform as is the church of today -- just in different ways.)
It would very much surprise me if B16 began the (certainly needed) process of decentralization without linking it to a process of intensive catechesis, and more importantly, to the process of recognizing and reinforcing the importance of those laity who are promoting *the right kinds* of reforms. JPII seemed to be just as harsh on laity who challenged the actions (or inactions) of the Vaticans based on tradition as he was on those who challenged him because they didn't believe the teachings of Christianity. The fact of disobedience or dissent was more important than what the dissention was about.
This sort of dissent happens all the time in Orthodox churches -- laity challenging and arguing (usually respectfully) with their priests and bishops. While no-one in authority likes to be challenged, most clergy respond by listening carefully and being open to the fact that maybe a pious layman or a non-ordained monastic (the vast majority of our monastics are non-ordained) is more connected with the living tradition of the Church than is he, on a given point. If the person presenting the dissent, however, is basing what he has to say on something besides the tradition of the Church -- well, the priest usually either smiles and nods and ignores, or simply sets the person straight.
I'll second everything that Agrarian has said with just a couple of observations. First, I would think that instead of Patriarchies, you'd have Eparchies of the Throne of +Peter, headed by a Cardinal Archbishop appointed by Rome and administered by an Eparchial Synod of some sort, probably made up of Metropolitans but perhaps all the bishops would be in it. That might get awfully large and cumbersome, though. My big fear would be that since the Roman Catholic laity has had no role to speak of beyond "pay, pray and obey" in the Church for 1000 years or more, especially such a role as would make it natural for them to act as the watch dogs of the orthodoxy of the hierarchs, heresy would crop up and firmly root itself very quickly. Your laity, as a general rule, wouldn't know heresy or the near occasion of the same if it hit them in the face, which it is every week in some dioceses, and even when they do see it, they don't seem to care. Rome has shown itself reluctant to remove unorthodox people like +Mahoney even under the present system. Under even what I have suggested, let alone under separate Patriarchates, removal might be even harder and less likely to happen. Someone or some position like a Grand Inquisitor (seriously, ninenot, with all due respect!) would have to be established to assure orthodoxy in the absence of the peer pressure which the 1800 year old Orthodox system generally insures. What would your liberal fellow communicants think of that? Frankly, though such a system looks great at first glance, it wouldn't work for the Roman Church and it would be very, very bad for any hope of improved relations with Orthodoxy. Who would we talk to? It will take a couple of hundred years of catechesis and at least a few major schisms in the Western Church before it will be ready for an Orthodox type system. I have great confidence in +Benedict XVI; I think most Orthodox who have noticed do too, but this is just a bad idea whose time has definitely not come.
Sadly, in the USA, most people define 'tradition' as anything done in THEIR lifetime.
GKC understood tradition better ('the democracy of the dead..') but it would take more than a couple weeks' catechesis to put a sense of history into American RC's--or their Bishops, in many cases.
From an Orthodox perspective, it is a very unnatural thing to have parallel churches side by side, but it is the reality. But to have parallel churches that use the same rite side by side is even more unthinkable.
But of course this not only the problem between Ukrainian Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, and Ukrainian Catholics all celebrating the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom side-by-side, glaring at each other in Kiev, but even here in Southern Appalachia USA.
Here, where Orthodox are less than 1% of the population, we still have Antiochians, ROCORs, Greeks, etc. each with their miniscule congregation, and each making a tiny,insect-like high-pitched squeeks that sound like keeee- keke ke-seseee-seeee and when you approach closer,you find it's not a rapid run-through of kyrie eleison on 78 RPM, it's I've got the keeeeeey to the front door and I'm changing the locks, seee-e-e- you in court..."
Some people very close to me were caught up in these incredibly bitter fights of laity vs pastor, pastor vs bishop, one jurisdiction battling the other through lawyers, lawsuits over property. Some people left Orthodoxy over it, and some were so badly scandalized,they lost their faith in God. I know whereof I speak. I guess that's one reason why ---- though loving the beautiful traditional Orthodox Liturgy --- I'm still Catholic after all these years.