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
1548 = 1448; apologies
They were brought into union in 1182 by the Crusaders. This is certain, because their self-styled Patriarch attneded the 4th Council of the Lateran in 1215. Some relapsed into Monothelitism (specifically in Cyprus) and were converted again after the time of Florence.
As for "petit" Patriarchs -- Serbia's population is as big as that of Greece.
And Moscow claims almost 90% of world's Orthodox.
An accident of history due to western and Russian passivity in the face of the utter destruction of the Greek Church between 1800 and 1925 by the Turkish fury.
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.
I made up the term myself to describe the reality.
One does not gain the status of patriarchate by the size of the population, but by how "mature" the Church is.
Surely then the Greek Churches in Greece and Cyprus should have its own Patriarchs, seeing as these date from the time of St. Paul and are obviously "mature". Of course this isn't the case, and maturity clearly has nothing at all to do with it.
The modern Serbian Patriarchate stems from lengthy quarrels with the Ecumenical Patriarchate and attempts by the Serbs to extricate themselves from his jurisdiction, only succeeding in 1879.
The proliferation of Patriarchates in the east is a matter of status, phyletism, and self-conscious imitation of the Great Church. The Bulgarians and Serbians both clearly believed they wouldn't be "real" Christians until they had their own Patriarch and Emperor, just like they saw in Constantinople. The distant history of the Serbian Patriarchate, for example, stems from the mid 14th century, when the Serb ruler arrogated to himself the title "Imperator Rasciae et Romanie" during the Roman Civil War in the times of St. Gregory Palamas.
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.
The title implies that he is patriarch of the entire "Oecumene". When assumed, it was taken as pretensions of universality, as St. Gregory the Great stated to St. John that "having attempted to put all his members under thyself by the appellation of Universal ... thou desirest to put thyself above them [thy brother Bishops] by this proud title, and to tread down their name in comparison with thine"(Letters 5.18)
Let's not forget that Justian made himself the ruler of the Church and that Rome listened and obeyed.
Are we talking about the same Emperor Justinian who wrote to Pope John (http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/jus-code.htm):
With honor to the Apostolic See, and to your Holiness, which is, and always has been remembered in Our prayers, both now and formerly, and honoring your happiness, as is proper in the case of one who is considered as a father, We hasten to bring to the knowledge of Your Holiness everything relating to the condition of the Church, as We have always had the greatest desire to preserve the unity of your Apostolic See, and the condition of the Holy Churches of God, as they exist at the present time, that they may remain without disturbance or opposition. Therefore, We have exerted Ourselves to unite all the priests of the East and subject them to the See of Your Holiness, and hence the questions which have at present arisen, although they are manifest and free from doubt, and according to the doctrines of your Apostolic See, are constantly firmly observed and preached by all priests, We have still considered it necessary that they should be brought to the attention of Your Holiness. For we do not suffer anything which has reference to the state of the Church, even though what causes difficulty may be clear and free from doubt, to be discussed without being brought to the notice of Your Holiness, because you are the head of all the Holy Churches, for We shall exert Ourselves in every way (as has already been stated), to increase the honor and authority of your See.
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.
I used the term (re?)developed. I think it is appropriate.