That’s what I heard, too. As I noted, it’s one of those cases where translation may catch the correct denotation but misses the often more important connotation. My response was likewise tongue-in-cheek since I would be more than a little uncomfortable a corporate-sounding title. (Though we could do with a little bit more of the accountability – and incentive – structures that corporations employ.)
While I strongly prefer the title of Patriarch, the word itself is so widely denigrated in academia due to the pervasive influence of feminist and Marxist “critiques,” that this honorable term may be rendered toxic in a generation or two. Yet what else captures that sense of fatherly responsibility?

I should have been more clear. I meant that the word “Primate” conjures up images along the line of Desmond Morris’ “The Naked Ape” and such — a kind of Darwinian hagiography where our forebear is a gorilla like figure holding a bone in his hand used to club coconuts (the discovery of tools and all that). It’s a cultural thing, at least here in America.

If you are digging for tidbits on church relations, it would be more useful to look at the MP’s self-understanding and projected image within the countries of the former USSR, especially in Russian language publications (as opposed to things edited into English for consumption in the Anglophone world).

When speaking a little more institutionally, the MP is the “Primate of the Russian Church” (most certainly not the Primate of the Church of Moscow, since the Russian Church in this understanding extends far, far beyond the modern-day borders of the Russian Federation and is an ethnic reality). When speaking of his person, as in the case of this press release, the MP is “His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia,” the latter part carrying tremendous ecclesiastical, political, and ethnic significance.

Scott, you’re absolutely right re the ancient patriarchates. What an effront to them, all three of which are in fact older than C’pole. What witness are we giving to honest seekers when we act in such a grandiloquent fashion?

Agreed, George,

It would not be a bad idea just to refer to him as the “Patriarch of Constantinople” and, if some clarification of his status within Orthodoxy is called for, refer to him as “First Hierarch of the Orthodox Church”. That much seems fair and accurate inasmuch as he is “first among equals” with his brother bishops. He probably deserves no less than that. “Head” or “Leader” of the Orthodox Church, etc. gives people the impression that he is some sort of Eastern Pope.

The one I find most curious is “the Mother Church”. Constantinople seems to want to constantly refer to itself this way. I’m not sure what possible basis they could have for designating themselves this way with respect to all the Orthodox. Regarding GOARCH and the Church of Greece, I can see it. I can see it being at least arguably accurate in a way regarding some of the Slavic Churches. It simply isn’t accurate at all, and I would imagine offensive, to assert this title vis a vis Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.

It makes it sound as though Constantinople is the cradle or source of (Orthodox) Christianity. This is simply untrue.

You know, how about just “Patriarch of Constantinople”? It should be understood that within Orthodoxy there is an order based on the diptychs. If non-Orthodox don’t know about these nuances, then the worst possible thing we could do would be to prattle on about canons and primatial sequences. Ugh. Lord have mercy.

Yeah, it always feels like someone is calling him the “First Gorilla” when I first hear it. One of those cases where modern parlance overrides the proper meaning of an ancient and venerable word. I suppose CHO – Chief Hierarchical Officer – is out of the question.

You’re right about the Russian nomenclature as well. All patriarchs are called by them “holiness,” none of this “all-holiness” nonsense to distinguish the EP. In fact, growing up as I did in the GOA, the first patriarch I remember was Athenagoras, who used the honorific “holiness,” as did his successor, Demetrius.

My point is that I’m not sure that our efforts to read the tea leaves regarding titles works too well with the Russians. During the spat between the Phanar and the OCA, some were looking at everything the MP released or said regarding Met. Jonah to see if the title of a primate was being used or merely a metropolitan of an autonomous church. I don’t think you can get an accurate picture that way.

That being said, “Ecumenical Patriarch” was pretentious when it was introduced and remains so. It’s not the same as primus inter pares. Constantinople claimed the EP title long before primacy fell to them.