Still, I do not understand the position of either Moscow or Constantinople. I thought the whole point of Orthodoxy, as opposed to Catholicism, was the denial of any single locus of authority. Say what you will about the claims of Rome (the first and only real one :) ), at least they are based on a theological basis with a grant to St. Peter by our Lord, not on who is the biggest and baddest bishop in the Church. It would seem to me that any claim by either Constantinople or Moscow for a leadership position within the Church that is vested with real authority, and not just honor, would only strengthen the prior claims of Rome to hold that position.
"It would seem to me that any claim by either Constantinople or Moscow for a leadership position within the Church that is vested with real authority, and not just honor, would only strengthen the prior claims of Rome to hold that position."
I don't think anyone would argue that primacy in The Church belongs to Rome. The question is what does that primacy mean? Met. John argues that Roman primacy implies some degree of power to exercise that primacy, though he has been quick to add that that does not mean any immediate universal jurisdiction. It undoubtedly implies the power to call councils and carries with it a sort of requirement that the opinions of the Pope on theological and ecclesiological matters be given the greatest deference, though not slavish acceptance. That said, it needs to be remembered that in the East, the final arbiter of "Orthodoxy" is the People of God, the people of God who followed the Pope during so many heretical outbreaks in the East before the Great Schism and the same ones who rejected the False Union of Florence.
What Moscow is talking about is a sort of Orthodox medieval papism, with overtones of nationalism. Constantinople is advocating for a far more ancient model based on the councils which indeed did establish Constantinople as second in honor and as Kosta pointed out, in default of the Pope, the EP becomes the primus inter pares among Orthodox hierarchs. That too implies as certain degree of enhanced authority but no more a universal immediate (or otherwise) jurisdiction than we would attribute to Rome.
"Still, I do not understand the position of either Moscow or Constantinople. I thought the whole point of Orthodoxy, as opposed to Catholicism, was the denial of any single locus of authority."
Yeah I sort of had that impression too. It seems some folks back their Patriarch above Orthodoxy.
Your memory seems to be better than the memory of the bishops at the Council of Chalcedon, Petrosius. It is clear from it that the privileges were very much determined who was the biggest and baddest of them all, inlcuidng the Old Rome. No mention was made of biblical primacy.
Among Orthodox, a very tiny minority (not surprisingly EP's right hand, Metropolitan of Pergamon, +Ionnais, who was in Belgrade) agree with the Latin side on this issue.
But here we are mixing two different issues: one concerns EP's transgressions, and the other one is Moscow's logical but uncanonical expectation of being more than just another Patriarchate.
Realistically speaking, Moscow cannot be snubbed. On the other hand, there is a sense of fantasy involved when we speak of Patriarchs of non-existent cities and Churches. There is a certain and undeniable degree of ingratitude rendered to Moscow which holds over 80% of the world's Orthodox.
To imply that the EP has no reason to show gratitude to the Russian Church, to treat it as one of the non-ancient Patriarchates, peripheral additions to the Orthodox community, is asking for a rift, because the reality is that the MP holds a vast majority of the world's Orthodox and that the Slavic Church will side with the MP, raising that number to more than 85%.
If this idiotic finger-pointing doesn't stop, and if the EP doesn't stop treating Moscow as some step-child, the Orthodox world will experience a catastrophic disaster over ethnocentric and egotistical issues, both of which are inexcusable for the monastic leaderhsip of the Orthodox Church community.
The Orthodox hierarchy should be more concerned with healing the rifts within its own ranks than with healing the east-west divide which is theologically hopeless for all practical proposes. This is one more reminder that ecumenism brought nothing good to Orthodoxy.
The Vatican, on the other hand deals with both. This approach has divided Orthodoxy more than proselytism or "Uniatism" could ever achieve. The Vatican can now simply sit back and enjoy the fight.