Our historical understanding of Roman Primacy is one thing, but how do we understand the role of the Ecumenical Patriarch today? There really can be no answer to that question outside the larger question of how Orthodoxy understands universal primacy. For, as Meyendorff states, "After the schism, Constantinople was left with primacy in Orthodoxy."{{ref|50}} There remains a need to look at some of these difficulties posed by the question of the role of the Ecumenical Patriarch in the modern Orthodox world.

Michael Fahey describes the contemporary functioning of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, though this understanding is dated and a more recent and comprehensive description is provided in DeVille's book. The Patriarch is elected by an endemousa (permanent) synod of twelve members, presided over by the Patriarch. "The synod addresses matters of moment to the patriarchate and, because of the primacy of this patriarchal church, it also discusses many far-reaching matters crucial to the life of Orthodoxy worldwide."{{ref|52}} Fahey outlines four ways the Ecumenical patriarch, along with his synod, has exercised primacy in recent years: 1) promotion of Orthodox unity and pan-Orthodox cooperation. 2) by agreeing to hear appeals from other local churches. 3) through ecumenical initiatives, and 4) through pastoral care of the diaspora.

Chalcedon canons 9 and 17 describe the authority of the see of Constantinople to hear appeals, though a better case can be made, following the Council of Sardica, that the right to hear appeals belongs to the bishop of Rome. This has certainly caused some problems in contemporary church life. Lewis Patsavos clarifies the view of the Ecumenical Patriarchate: "In both cases, bishops and other clergy dissatisfied with their metropolitan are not compelled be the council to appeal to the see of Constantinople, but thereby overturning the decision of the exarch of the diocese. On the contrary, they are given this option only if they so desire."{{ref|58}}

Too often, the "pastoral care of the diaspora" has seemed more like a ploy for power. The question of territorial limits is a hotly debated today, especially in Eastern Europe. Based on a certain interpretation of the term "barbarians" I Chalcedon canon 28, the Ecumenical Patriarch has tried to argue in recent years for jurisdiction over the "diaspora,." but everyone recognizes this for what it is: a naked bid for power by a hierarch who is almost completely overshadowed by, on the one hand, a vastly numerically superior Russian Church and, on the other, by a vastly superior number of Muslims in Turkey. Troitsky and L'Huillier offer extensive treatments about the proper interpretation of this canon.{{ref|59}} Nevertheless, the question remains: Does Constantinople have a certain jurisdiction over the "diaspora" not otherwise in the "territory" of another mother-church? Many would say yes. While shying away from the full brunt of the Constantinopolitan position, Lewis Patsavos defends this fundamental right to hear appeals, saying: "Constantinople has always maintained that the canonical legacy of the Fourth Ecumenical Council proves without a doubt… areas not claimed by a specific ecclesiastic jurisdiction were under the authority of the bishop of Constantinople."{{ref|60}}