What I take issue with, and you keep dodging, GreekisChristian, is you seem to imply that the Phanar represents the pan Orthodox view on any given topic, particularly ecumenism.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š The Ecumenical Patriarchate is actually rather small and very unrepresentative of Orthodoxy - a few thousand Christians in Turkey and then a few places in the diaspora.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š
The posistion of the Oecumenical Throne is of far greater significance than you would like to believe, when the Oecumenical Throne declares a Posistion, Alexandria and Cyprus nearly always back her up, as well as either Antioch or Jerusalem (usually both...depending on the issue), that is 4 if not all 5 of the Five ancient Eastern Churches as laid forth in the Oecumenical Synods. Furthermore, even amongst the newer autocephalous Churches in Athens and the Slavic Lands, Nearly all of them (with the Possible Exception of Moscow) will follow the lead of Constantinople. The Archbishop of Constantinople is truly the Oecumenical Patriarch, it is the First see of Orthodox and receives the honour due to her by most the Other Churches. Assults on the Oecumenical Throne (if they don't come from Moscow for other Political Reasons) nearly always come from Schismatic Organizations, trying to improve their posistion by attacking the Symbol and Standard of Orthodoxy, the Oecumenical Throne.
Also your claim that the anti-ecumenists I mentioned were simply monks - that is also false.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š While the vast majority of Orthodox monasticism is anti-ecumenistic, I also pointed out several bishops that are well respected - Metr. Amfilohije, Patr. Pavle, Archbp. Artemije, Metr. Hierotheos Vlachos, et al.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Note that those are all bishops with real flocks as well.
Actually I said that the conference was organized by ONE Monastery that happened to be anti-oecumenist, and they invited who they wanted to hear speak according to their agenda. It is true that many monasteries tend to be fundamentalist and unreasonable to the demands of the Secular world, but this is by no means universally the case, there are also monastics who work in the Oecumenical Movement.
The fact that you would also disregard modern saints as unimportant in "policy" is very disturbing.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š I would encourage you to look at the teachings of Saints Nektarios, Savvas the new, Justin Popovich et al.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Since they are ones in our era that have lived theosis, I'd be very cautious to dismiss them.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š
While these local saints may be spiritually edifying to the community from which they come and hence serve an important purpose in the Church. They are not authorities on these matters Church Discipline and Order and should not be treated as such, such matters are rather the concern of the standing Synods of the Orthodox Church. Each of which are free to pursue these matters in the manner they deign best until an endimousa synod address the issue.
I agree with Saint John Chrysostomos that schism is a very dangerous issue - if only the Phanar did as well!ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š The ambitions for power within the phanar in the past 80 years have led the church very close to the brink of large internal schisms.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Saint John Maximovitch wrote an excellent paper on the issue of the EP's decline in recent times.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š From ambitions in the Czech lands, to Estonia to "excommunicating" Patriarch Diodoros of Jerusalem there is seemingly no end to what the Phanar will do in its grab for power - even to the point of threatning schism.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š
My first instinct would be to answer you with the statement that the Oecumenical Throne is the Standard of Orthodoxy, and those in Communion with her are Orthodox and those out of Communion are Heterodox, thus the Oecumenical Throne does not enter into Schism but those who break communion with her do, and then argue this from the Historical Roles of the Oecumenical Throne. But as I've already put for this argument much to the dismay of some here, and it seems to end in circular arguments, I shall answer your question differently.
As I have said before when Constantinople Speaks, most of Orthodoxy Follows, Constantinople does not enter into Schism if for no other reason than the various Churches do not break Communion with her, rather they support her. Constantinople's claims of authority in the lands north of her are canonically solid, it is not the actions of Constantinople that are Unacceptable but rather the conduct of those who oppose her maternal attempts to establish justice and order and see to the well-being of the Church. The Rights of Constantinople are far greater than those she chooses to execute, always with the best interest of the Church in mind, instead she restrains herself and often denies herself her rights, power, authority, and honour inorder to allow for what is in the best interest of the Church and Orthodox Faithful. You accuse the Oecumenical Throne of threatening Schism, but she has not done this, these situations of which you speak are either cases of the Holy and Oecumenical Throne attempting to preempt or fight schism or to bring Order and Discipline where her Daughter Churches have failed and have allowed Chaos and Disorder to reign.
Concerning Bishop John Maximovitch, perhaps these libelous attacks are amongst the reasons why he has not been entered into the Synaxarion of the Great Church of Christ.