I would imagine that the Patriarch of Constantinople will never, ever be the "Patriarch of Istanbul." I don't think that change would be readily accepted by the Greeks. It's my understanding that there are only about 500 Greek Orthodox in Istanbul, along with the Patriarch. It's kind of a patriarchate-in-exile since the Greeks were expelled from Turkey in the 1920s. It's an interesting story - the Greeks, who had lived in Asia Minor since the time of Homer, thought they could get the upper hand on the Turks. They ended up losing everything, and Greece could not absorb all the Greeks who were exiled from Turkey. Many emigrated to the U.S., particularly to Detroit.

It's a bit "iffy" to say that the Pope himself is infallible, because that creates all sorts of misunderstandings. It's the doctrines he promulgates under certain very specific circumstances, that can be deemed infallible. Since the doctrine of infallibility was declared by the First Vatican Council in the 1870s, there has been only one clear-cut infallible doctrine, the assumption of Mary into heaven. And that's one of those doctrines that makes no nevermind to me. Who cares? Still, the Doctrine of Infallibility is an embarrassment to me. We Catholics would be better off without it.

Note that the First Vatican Council was held at the same time the Pope was losing ownership of the Papal States, so that he was no longer a political leader of any consequence. Was that the reason for the paranoid spirit of Vatican I? That council was called to oppose a long list of things that worried Pius IX, which he called the heresy "modernism." One particularly despicable aspect of modernism was "Americanism."

Papal politics is a fascinating spectator sport. It's important not to take it too seriously. After all, membership and obedience in the Catholic Church are voluntary. I wish Catholics would remember that. It would make Catholicism a lot more fun for them.

-Joe-