"I am no expert in the intricacies of Near-East ecclesiology, but I think I can spot callous opportunism when I see it. Kolokotronis probably knows much more about "the reunion of the Patriarchate of Antioch with Rome" than I do. He also knows at least a little more of the history of how the Eastern Patriarchates survived Ottoman rule."
Actually, you've pointed out the big "fly" in Rome's Antiochian ointment, a fly even Hermann should have recognized. Right now there are five or six claimants ( among them Non Chalcedonians and Nestorians) to the title "Patriarch of Antioch". The only claimant to the Antiochian See within the Apostolic Succession which begins with St. Peter and was maintained on the diptychs at Rome until the Great Schism is Ignatius IV, the Orthodox Patriarch. Rome recognized certain other "patriarchs", for example the Melkite and Maronite claimants sometime after the Schism when the former group renounced Orthodoxy and came over to Rome under the guidance of French Crusaders (they were in a fight with the Byzantines at the time) and the latter when the French came up against them in the Mount Lebanon area. The Maronites had been schismatics from The Church from centuries before.
The experience of The Church under the Ottomans was a sorry one. As we all know, the Ottomans had a "millyet" system whereby different ethnicities had a degree of subservient autonomy within the Caliphate. The Patriarch of Constantinople was designated the Ethnarc of the Christians by the Ottomans and acted in an almost Papal role when it came to all Christians within the Ottoman Empire. It is certainly fair to say that the concept of conciliarity which had been before the fall of the City and since the Greek War of Independence, a hallmark of Orthodoxy, fell somewhat by the wayside during the Turkokratia. It was a very bad time. Many of the EPs were holy and good men, but many others were truly evil secular rulers who, like so many of the Roman Popes, came to the throne by bribery, extortion, out right purchase of the office or even murder. During the Greek War of Independence, the Turks hung the Patriarch of Constantinople from the gate of the Patriarchate as a punishment for not keeping the Greeks under control which was his function as envisioned by the Turks. Since then the EP has had little or no secular influence. Here's a snip from a comment on the website of the GOA:
"It was likewise the Church's fate to be affected by the Turkish system of corruption. The patriarchal throne was frequently sold to the highest bidder, while new patriarchal investiture was accompanied by heavy payment to the government. In order to recoup their losses, patriarchs and bishops taxed the local parishes and their clergy. Nor was the patriarchal throne ever secure. Few patriarchs between the fifteenth and the nineteenth centuries died a natural death while in office. The forced abdications, exiles, hangings, drownings, and poisonings of patriarchs are well documented. But if the patriarch's position was precarious so was the hierarchy's. The hanging of patriarch Gregory V from the gate of the patriarchate on Easter Sunday 1821 was accompanied by the execution of two metropolitans and twelve bishops. (The gate still remains closed in St. Gregory's memory.) The above summary - stark and short as it is - is sufficient to convey the persecution, decay, and humiliation that Eastern Christendom suffered under Ottoman rule. If we add to this tragic fate the militant communist atheism under which most Orthodox lived after 1917, we get some sense of the dislocation and suffering of Eastern Christianity in the last five hundred years. The grave problems that western Christians had to face as a result of the French Revolution and the secularization of western society in general might be said to pale against these facts."
As for the Patriarchs of Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria "residing" at Constantinople, I didn't know this, but I suspect it was during the Turkokratia and it can't have been for long. In the meantime of course, the Patriarchate of Moscow was able to maintain its freedom of action both from Rome and the Turks.
We have rehashed that recently. The Maronites were not brought into the union with Rome officially until 1548, following the Council of Florence, who were at their conversion described as people who were under the error of Macarius. It was not until the early 16th century that they participated as full-fledged Catholics.
As for "petit" Patriarchs -- Serbia's population is as big as that of Greece. And Moscow claims almost 90% of world's Orthodox. Thus, to the MP, everyone else is "petit." We just don't use such arrogant language because it is not in our "corporate culture" so to say, Hermann. The Patriarch of Serbia has an equal vote with that of the Patriarch of Moscow of the EP, and neither Patriarch will interfere in the internal affairs of the Serbian Church, as is the case now with the Ohrid Archiosese and the so-called "Macedonian Orthodox Church."
One does not gain the status of patriarchate by the size of the population, but by how "mature" the Church is. The EP is not an arrogant title as you imply -- in liturguical languages Constantinople is referred to as the Imperial City (Tsarigrad in Slavonic), and it was my understanding that Ecumenical was synonimous with Imperial.
Let's not forget that Justian made himself the ruler of the Church and that Rome listened and obeyed. And let's not forget that the honor was accorded as was a custom, to those who represented a location of importance, Old Rome being first and then Constantinople, the Ecumenical Capital. The primacy had nothing to do with who ruled the church, as the west implied.
The Pope is right: we don't see the Petrine primacy the same way (he says "still"). If collegiality was disturbed under the Muslim rulers, it was an aberration, not "corporate culture" (a la Dictatus Papae). Collegiality wasn't (re?)invented as you suggest, but resurrected. That's a good staring point for further understaning bretween our Churches; a little collegiality can go very far.
And one more thing: with all due respect to this Pope, who is a humble and good Father: we do not profess the same Faith
No, the Melkite Catholics originated in a 1724 schism in the Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch. The Melkite Patriarch was elected first and caused a union with Rome that had already been attempted by his predecessor without success (his profession of faith was deemed insufficient in Rome). In rejecting this new Patriarch and the Union, the remaining Orthodox elected a second Patriarch and proclaimed him to be the only real one, precisely because he had not gone over to Rome.
As for the Patriarchs of Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria "residing" at Constantinople, I didn't know this, but I suspect it was during the Turkokratia and it can't have been for long. In the meantime of course, the Patriarchate of Moscow was able to maintain its freedom of action both from Rome and the Turks.
This started in the period of the collapse of the Roman Empire after Mazinkert, and the subsequent Crusader era. The Turks merely continued over an already existing policy.
The Latin Patriarchs originated around the same time and for precisely the reason that the Orthodox Patriarchs had left and taken up residence in Constantinople. At the end of the Crusades, the Latin Patriarchs decamped to Rome, where they becaome decorative ecclesiastical furniture.
The freedom of the Moscow Patriarch, and its broad scope of mission (Poland to America, and the Black Sea to the Arctic) is the reason it has waxed so strong into a true Patriarchate.