Bishop Basil was not guilty of disobeying Patriarch Alexei, another bishop, but of disobeying the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church, his lawful authority.

Alexandr

But clearly it was the Patriarch who took action. Are you saying the Patriarch has now power to act apart from the direct authorization of the synod?

Set aside the case of Bishop Basil then (because I do not want to argue the specifics of that case here), the Patriarch of Moscow exercising jurisdiction over any bishop outside of the diocese of Moscow...how is this not a violation of this principle?

Gordo

Constantinople violated Orthodox rule of order and openly set up an autocephalous Church where a Church already existed, under Moscow.

Are you aware Gordo that there are now 2 Churches in Estonia, the canonical one under Moscow and the other under Constantinople. it would be like +Alexei starting a Church of Greece under Moscow.

Constantinople violated Orthodox rule of order and openly set up an autocephalous Church where a Church already existed, under Moscow.

Are you aware Gordo that there are now 2 Churches in Estonia, the canonical one under Moscow and the other under Constantinople. it would be like +Alexei starting a Church of Greece under Moscow.

ITV: What is the role of the "Petrine office" in Orthodox theology and practice?

ALFEYEV: We do not have any theology of the Petrine office on the level of the Universal Church. Our ecclesiology does not have room for such a concept. This is why the Orthodox Church has for centuries opposed the idea of the universal jurisdiction of any bishop, including the Bishop of Rome.

We recognize that there is a certain order in which the primates of the Local Churches should be mentioned. In this order the Bishop of Rome occupied the first place until 1054, and then the primacy of order in the Orthodox Church was shifted to the Patriarch of Constantinople, who until the schism had been the second in order. But we believe that all primates of
the Local Churches are equal to one another, and none of them has
jurisdiction over any other.

ITV: Did the week of discussion that continued without you yield anything interesting or useful?

ALFEYEV: I do not know to what conclusion the meeting came, since the document remains unpublished. Once it is published, the Moscow Patriarchate will study it.

ITV: Was there something you intended or planned to say at Ravenna?

ALFEYEV: My intention was to work hard in Ravenna both as a member of the Mixed Commission and as a member of its Drafting Committee. In the spring of this year, the Drafting Committee met in Rome, and we successfully resolved the problems that had been created during the plenary meeting of the Commission in Belgrade in 2006. I had every reason to believe that, if our
proposals were accepted in Ravenna, we would have moved forward and finished the document. Apparently, the document is now finished, but since I did not take part in the discussions I am not qualified to say whether its conclusions will be acceptable for my Church.

The absence of the Moscow Patriarchate from this stage of the work of the Mixed Commission, in my opinion, makes the whole work of the Commission problematic. I know that the Patriarchate of Constantinople does not share this opinion. Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) said very clearly to me in front of all other Orthodox delegates: ‘If one Orthodox Church leaves, the others
will continue the dialogue’. But the Moscow Patriarchate represents more than a half of world Orthodox Christianity. Without it, the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue will in fact be a dialogue of the Catholic Church with less than a half of the Orthodox Church.

I am aware that the Catholics regard the whole situation as an
‘inter-Orthodox problem.’ This is a comfortable position. I believe, however, that the situation should be a matter of concern also for our Catholic partners, if they want this dialogue to be truly legitimate and inclusive. Some common efforts should be made in order to avoid similar
situations in the future.

-

such a view is difficult to reconcile with the history of the Bishop of Rome vis-a-vis other Churches.

Patriarch Alexei is himself an ethnic Estonian!

Constantinople violated Orthodox rule of order and openly set up an autocephalous Church where a Church already existed, under Moscow.

Are you aware Gordo that there are now 2 Churches in Estonia, the canonical one under Moscow and the other under Constantinople. it would be like +Alexei starting a Church of Greece under Moscow.