I’m a Latin and I’ll take this a step farther. Yes, I would like to see all the Eastern Churches Sui Iuris granted the right to elect their own bishops without restriction. Furthermore, I would like to see the restoration of national / regional Synods in the Latin Church that would elect their own bishops (not these modern Conferences that lack real teeth).
For the most part the local bishops of countries in the Latin church elect their own bishops already. It’s just that they have to be confirmed by Rome or something like that. Unless the candidate is problematic then Rome chooses one of the other recommended candidates.
Regional synods were not standing organizations like the synods of the east today. They were called when needed (controversies or issues that needed to be addressed) and otherwise did not factor into the life of the countries in Latin Church. Giving power to local bishops confrences or making them synods would severely undermine the authority of the local bishop. In fact even today, bishops complain that their authority is undermined by the bishops confrences as they feel pressured into applying the outcomes of the meetings by other bishops. Bare in mind this is when bishops confrences don’t even have any canonical authority yet. National synods would be disastrous.
I honestly think the bishops confrences should be abolished and if a synod is needed to address a problem in a specific region, then it should be called. Otherwise the biannual Roman Synod is good enough which suffices as a patriarchal synod of the Latin church.
The Latin church has always believed in the apostolic teaching of the local church being the diocese of the Bishop and not a national church like what developed in the east. In fact Rome repudiated the German bishops on this by explicitly stating
“the local church is the church of Paris, Rome, Barcelona etc and not the church of France, Germany etc.” The idea of the national conference being the local church is a breakaway from the traditional apostlic teaching on the catholicity of the church.
Regional / provincial primacy is greatly diminished in the modern Latin Church and the fact that Rome ultimately appoints pretty much every single bishop is a huge part of this.
Actually regional primacy is increased and Latin bishops enjoy the most authority in their territories out of all bishops in the world. They can literally do whatever they want. Eastern bishops can do what they want as long as what they do is in accordance with the patriarchal synod. They cannot go against it or else they will be in trouble. Whereas the Roman synod is an advisory board and bishops have total freedom in their territories. The popes instructions are the only thing that they have to conform to and even then Rome hardly issues any definitive instructions without the freedom of the bishop to do otherwise.
Imagine giving the German Catholic clergy their own synod and power to choose their own bishops without necessary patriarchal confirmation from Rome (patriarchal confirmation is something even the eastern churches exercise). The German church would be worse than the anglicans in a matter of seconds after holding their first synod.
If a major issue, the faithful or neighbouring bishops should always have the right to appeal to Rome. I don’t in anyway deny papal primacy…this is just a question of how its exercised.
That being said, I did see an excellent symbolic expression of provincial primacy this past summer when our (Latin) metropolitan archbishop consecrated a new bishop for one of the suffragan dioceses.
