And he treats the Minor Patriarch of Lisbon as the primary Church leader in Portugal. And he treats Mar Emmanuel as the primary (Chaldean) Church leader in Iraq. In other words, as brother bishops.
I haven't seen him treat any of them with the deference he has given Bartholomew. Not even close. That's not to say that he looks down on them -- he doesn't. That's not to say that he doesn't acknowledge him as being the shepherd for the Orthodox Church in Russia. Not at all. But again, not with anywhere near the same deference given to Bartholomew (or, as I have been able to see, the deference given to the Patriarchs of the other ancient patriarchates...but the documentation is not nearly as complete with them)
Oh, and as to your other comment, I think the historical context given in #5 becomes relevant. Would the Ecumenical Patriarch have accepted it had he not essentially been under siege by Mohammedans at the time, his city having only been recently conquered? And would the others have declared themselves independent (autocephalous) in the 19th Century (with Constantinople still being under siege) had Russia not first done so hundreds of years earlier?
Please keep in mind that my rants on this thread should be read in the context of the outrageousness of the comments made by Hilarion, which you apparently agree with.
*sigh* I guess that we should follow Ecumenical Councils when convenient...but they should be *living* *breathing* documents (sort of like the US Constitution).
Maybe, maybe not. Supposition doesn't help much in determining his motives.
And would the others have declared themselves independent (autocephalous) in the 19th Century (with Constantinople still being under siege) had Russia not first done so hundreds of years earlier?
Maybe, maybe not. Supposition doesn't help much in determining their motivations. But the ultimate test is whether or not the rest of the Church agrees with the change.