They could arrange an "accidental" meeting on neutral territory. If there is a wish, there is a way.
One thing I noticed is that many Catholics rub the fact that the Pope is willing to bend over backwards to make unity acceptable to the Orthodox.
First of all, I don't see Orthodoxy pleading with Rome to bend over backwards or, for that matter, to do anything other than stop its acitivites in an Eastern Patriarchate, which has been traditionally off limits to the popes even when the Church was united.
Second, if we are one and the same sacramentally, why proselytize in Orthodox lands?
The Catholic mindset is not attuned to the fact that Patriarchates were equal in authority but Rome was first in honor. It is therefore not surprising that the behavior of the other Patriarchs is considered "unauthorized."
A good example of the early Church organization would be NATO. There is a supreme commander, yet all members must approve. It's all for one and one for all principle.
I think we have beaten this horse enough. He ain't gettin' up. But, thanks for your insightful and giftedr responses.
"First of all, I don't see Orthodoxy pleading with Rome to bend over backwards or, for that matter, to do anything other than stop its acitivites in an Eastern Patriarchate, which has been traditionally off limits to the popes even when the Church was united."
There are certainly moves being made to stop proselytism on Eastern territories. The recent change of nuncio to Moscow was part of this as well as the commission that is being set up between Rome and Moscow to monitor these matters. However, ministry to our own flock in these lands is not in question.
There undoubtedly has been proselytism occurring, but nobody was authorised to do this and it will no doubt take time to change attitudes. Part of the problem is that a number of zealous lay organisations jumped in with both feet and our hierarchy is having a difficult job reigning them in.
It would certainly make it easier for the pro-Orthodox voices in our Church to be heard if the objection could not be raised that the Orthodox are also proselytising Latins in Sicily, South America, France etc.!
"Second, if we are one and the same sacramentally, why proselytize in Orthodox lands?"
I think I have given you my view of proselytism in my previous post where I said it is sinful. I also know that the Pope is against it, however, he does not have the power that he used to have - he is trying to change the way the Papacy works. I think your NATO analogy is a fairly accurate description of where JPII wants the Papacy to move to.
"The Catholic mindset is not attuned to the fact that Patriarchates were equal in authority but Rome was first in honor."
While I would maintain that there are prerogatives that Rome has always uniquely held, you are right to state that Catholic mentality is not attuned to the role of the other Patriarchs.
This is something that is changing slowly and will no doubt take some generations to come about. A seemingly trivial, but actually symbolic example of this took place at the opening of Vatican Council II. The Cardinals had assumed that they would be the ones in seats of honour with the Pope, however, John XXIII insisted that the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs be seated with him as equals.
This caused some consternation among the Cardinals, but he would not be swayed. This may seem like a small thing and I know that the Orthodox have problems with the existence of the Eastern Catholics, but I do think it was a sign of a shift in mentality beginning.