Then I read this from Wikipedia:
The idea of Moscow being the Third Rome was popular since the early Russian Tsars. Within decades after the Fall of Constantinople to Mehmed II of the Ottoman Empire on May 29, 1453, some were nominating Moscow as the "Third Rome", or new "New Rome."
Stirrings of this sentiment began during the reign of Ivan III, Grand Duke of Moscow who had married Sophia Paleologue. Sophia was a niece of Constantine XI, the last Eastern Roman Emperor and Ivan could claim to be the heir of the fallen Eastern Roman Empire(Byzantine Empire).
The pope's choice of that particular quote from Manuel II Paleologos was obviously chosen to elicit many different, unexpected, and seemingly unrelated responses.
Pre-eminence of any pratical Church in the undivided Church (until 1054) was based on the pre-eminence of the city in which it was located, which was based on imperial and government institutions (i.e. senate, etc.).
That is clear from the proceedings of the Council of Chalcedon.
The "ranking" (i.e. first, second, third, etc.) in protocol was based on other factors (i.e. historical precdence, dignity of the Bishopric, etc.). Thus, the Old Rome was always first in honor.
Given that the Moscow Patriarchate accounts for more than 80% of the world's Orthodox Christians, it should have been made into a "Third Rome" long ago based on the system established by Ecumenical Councils.
The fact that you have non-existent episcopates of "Constantinople" (fewer than 2,000 parishioners) in Turkey officially being the Ecumenical center for all Orthodox shows how out-of-touch the Church has become for sentimental and other reasons.
Together with Ukrainian Orthodox, Serbian Orthodox, Bulgarian Orthodox, Slovak Orthodox, and Polish Orthodox, it is safe to say that Orthodoxy is a pre-eminently Slavic religion, making up close to 90% of world's Orthodoxy.
Yes, Moscow should be the Ecumenical Capital of Orthodoxy, and HH Alexei II should be the Ecumenical Patriarch of world's Orthodox Church. It's long overdue.