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.
Far cry from the claims of the Maronite Church that they were in communion with Rome "from the beginning." Catholic Encyclopedia expresses doubt of Maronite catholicity before the 16th century. Even pope Pius II referrs to them as heretics as late as 1451.
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
Just as the imperial papacy is an accident of heresy in the East and Frankish invasion in the west.
--You are confusing the Bulgarian search for a patriarchate connected to a crown with Serbs. The Serbs already had a crowned head -- he received the crown from the Pope. It was the king's son Rastko (monastic name Sava) who established Orthodoxy in Serbia. Dushan conquered most of Greece and what is today Albania. Whether he was a "true" emperor in your eyes or not is immaterial.
--Petit Patriarchs have equal votes as the "grand" Patriarchs, Hermann. That's what counts.
--Conveniently you leave out the relations with the popes and the Emperor Justinian...but concentrate on his promotion of the Holy See (out of context, given what was happening in the East, and thereby understandable).
But all this has taken us too far from the message of Pope Benedixt XVI. Despite his friendly overtures, what exactly is he proposing? He keeps reiterating that we have more in common than what divides us (we all know that), but he has yet to make concrete proposals to his plan for reconciliation.
If there is going to be any meaningful discussion in light of his invitation and overtures, there has to be some "meat" to them. Thus far, I have seen nothing but cursory compliments. How is this, then, different than all the other invitations -- from Florence onward -- that turned out to be nothing but an offer of what would amount to Unia? In other words, it really doesn't matter what the Orthodox teach and believe, or how they worship, as long as they recognize the Pope the way the Pope understands the Pope! It's all about the Pope, not theology. To which I say: thanks, but no thanks.
Actually, the Church of Greece, like the Church of Cyprus is very autonomous. Far more autonomous than is any "Patriarchate" in communion with Rome. I used the term (re?)developed. I think it is appropriate.
Regardless of how you term it, the reality is that Orthodoxy has a ecclesiology that is in continuity with the patristic era and Rome does not. Are we supposed to be broken up over the fact that a temporary abberation in our ecclesial organization (and that only in the Greek-speaking Patriarchates) was corrected, when Rome has yet to acknowledge the grave error of declaring universal jurisdiction and infallibility?