The "Primacy" of the Patriarch of Constantinople

Crux: ‘Orthodox Social Ethos’ aims to put Eastern Church spin on social issues by Charles C. Camosy

Today on @Crux, ‘Orthodox Social Ethos’ aims to put Eastern Church spin on social issues https://t.co/9ETt3WHnZI

— Crux (@Crux) May 16, 2020

If it's not an official document of Patriarch Bartholomew, then why should it be accorded any weight. And even if it were, then why should it be accorded any weight? As a document of moral theology, it must be evaluated as such -- where was the discussion with bishops and theologians who might have disagreed with the language or the premises?


It seems to me that the patriarchate of Constantinople is imitating the worst excesses of Rome in claiming to exercise some sort of primacy, even if it is denying that this is an official document. The patriarch of Constantinople is nonetheless posturing as the "universal teacher" of the Chalcedonian Orthodox. It seems to me that the patriarchate of Constantinople is imitating the worst excesses of Rome in claiming to exercise some sort of primacy, even if it is denying that this is an official document. It's like the C. Orthodox are trying to put out their own version of "Churc Social Teaching" and making the same sort of mistakes as the Latins. Any relevant precepts for political life should be laid out, even if as a catechism, but theology touching upon political community and life needs to be scrutinized carefully and discussed by all and not rushed in order to get something published.

Is this the sort of hubris that requires the complete erasure of the patriarchate from Asia Minor as a divine chastisement?

The document would seem to indicate that the Fordham faculty and Greek-American Orthodox had a very big role in framing the opinions put forth in the document as there is a lot of liberalism in the document. I don't doubt that representatives of more conservative jurisdictions were excluded from the creation of the document, even if there might be a pretext of "schism." But I am guessing that they were just not invited. If there is bad theology in the document (and there is), Patriarch Bartholomew is accountable. The question is, will he recognize anyone else as having a sound criticism of the document, and if he does, will he hold himself accountable?