" ... I had a source of inspiration in my brother Bartholomew, the Orthodox Patriarch, who ..."etc.etc..
This is from the English version. Of languages which I can stumble through, the definite article is absent from the French. The comma after Patriarch is present only in the English (could someone give me a hand with the Polish?).
Does it matter?
Well, consider this: "I had dinner with Booboo, the king of Timbuctoo, who ...". It implies just one holder of that august regal title. Now consider: "I had dinner with Booboo an African chieftain who ..." It allows ... even, I think, requires ... a plurality of such dignitaries.
There are more Orthodox Patriarchs than just one. But the English phrase makes it sound as if there is only one such personage, "the Orthodox Patriarch". The direct article is reinforced by the comma, because, without the comma, you could read the sentence as meaning "Bartholomew, that particular one among the Orthodox Patriarchs who ..."
But what a waste of time, examining different translations ... isn't it inevitable that ...
No!! It is not inevitable! Time was, when important formal documents emerging from Rome would be in a dead language the juridical precision of which only rather rarely left ambiguities to be haggled over.
But still ... does it really matter?
Just possibly, it might. His All-Holiness might not regard English as his first-to-turn-to language among those offered him by Rome, but his 'Minister of Foreign Affairs, Metropolitan Hilarion, did his Patristics in Oxford (under Timothy Ware) and he speaks English like an Englishman. He might, indeed, read this document in its English version.
And the Patriarch of Constantinople, and the Patriarch of Moskow and All the Russias, are not currently in communion. Is our most holy Father Cyril going to like it that PF regards Bartholomew as the Orthodox Patriarch?