Totally unconnected to any present reality. The EP's done nothing and yet the EP's enemies have convicted him. Sick, sick, sick.
He should have said, as the canons require, a flat out no, and he should NOT have said that he was sending a delegation which has no right to set foot in Ukraine. Arrogance, pride, ambition.
On the face of it, I would agree with you. However absent the charge given this delegation (and even YOU don't know what their instructions are) you are just engaging in your normal paranoia, interpolating without sound basis.
The mere EXISTENCE of the delegation and the NONEXISTENCE of a flat out denial for want of jurisdiction are enough of a canonical infraction to warrant deposition, as EP Sophronius III found out. The canons state that a bishop may not as much set foot or otherwise excersise authority in a diocese not his own.
Why don't they have a right?
A bishop cannot act within the diocese of another bishop without permission from the diocesan bishop. This applies even even if you are talking about the presiding hierach and a member bishop, much less when talking about separate autocephalous churches. Since the EP recognizes the bishops of the UOC-MP as the legitimately ordained bishops for the dioceses in that region, he has no business sending emissaries into their territory to discuss anything without their permission. Recieving their representatives in his own diocese and using that as a starting point to try to affect reconciliation with those ruling bishops would be a fully legitimate application of his position as first hierarch, but he has no authority to take action *inside* the Ukraine without the permission of the bishops already in place.
If this delegation is going to Ukraine, it is likely due to an appeal to the Synod of Constantinople against the PoM (which the Synod has the right to hear according to the canons). Despite the speculation of others I don't think the EP is going to rule favorably (from the POV of the UAOC) to the appeal.
The Ecumenical Throne, according to the canons, is not a court of first instance. In this case, the bishops, being schismatic even by the words of the EP's own previous statements, lack standing to appeal to the EP, and they having not first sought out their Metropolitan Volodymyr (I have no indiction that they did so) nor their Patriarch Kyril (I have no indication that they did so), the EP lacks standing to even consider it.
Sinai is the most autonomous of all the autonomous Churches, having the right for instance to have metochia, etc. It is subordinate to Jerusalem only in that its archbiship has to be consecrated by the PoJ, and the PoJ is mentioned in the diptychs. And still, EP Sinai's Archb. Cyril appealing to EP Sophronios III about an internal matter was found by the Orthodox Churches
(plural) a canonical infraction warranting deposition.
This is very disturbuing news. The rift that will result if Constantinople accepts the UAOC is unimaginable, far worse than Estonia. It's quite alarming enough that Constantinople will even consider the request and endanger the unity of the Orthodox Church.
But are we suprised.
It was mooted that Moscow accepted the Constantinople headship of all the Regional Episcopal Assemblies in exchange for a deal that Constantinople would leave the Ukrainian problems alone. This news item is evidence suggesting that there was no such deal.
I, of course, have no inside information. But my working theory was it was obvious, for various reasons that the Episcopal Assembly wasn't going to get off the ground (the problems already with the chairmanship as envisioned at Chambesy in France, the rumblings in the Antiochian Church in North America with the calls for union with the reinvigorated OCA, whose hiearch, although not invited, has shown himself less of a push over, etc.). I believe the PoM gambled on the EP falling on his face. I fear that he has given the EP enough rope, with attendant disaster of the proportion of EP St. Gregory V the Ethnomartyr and EP Meletios IV, the latter reviving the ancient Greek concept of hubris. The EP I believe thought he could pull a fast one, and is now trying to push the envelop as a followup.
Lord help us!
Of recent times Constantinople has been becoming more vocal in its claim that Chalcedon 28 makes the EP the Patriarch of the Barbarians. But can the Ukraine with its 1000 years of Christianity be counted as part of the canonical territory of the Patriarch of the Barbarians?
The EP made the claim that the union of Ukraine to Russia was uncanonical when the Bolsheviks had hamstrung the Russian Church. The Ukrainians are reviving this claim. According to the novel Chalcedon 28 claim, that would put Ukraine outside of the canonical territory of the PoM and hence his. The EP has no problem abolishing Patriarchates, as Serbia and Bulgaria know, or reducing them to his exarchs, as Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem and Cyprus know, or try to prevent them as the CoG, Albania, the Czech and Slovak lands and the OCA know. The Russian and the Romanians learned: present the EP with a fait accompoli. The EP would try to do the same. Poland (and hence Russia) knows the EP will exercise jurisdiction if he can get away with it. Some Ukrainians are trying to do the same.
Btw, the Russians have the blot of the abolishment of the Church of Georgia on its record. Now Georgia will be on our Episcopal Assembly. Wonder what they are all going to talk about.
I like the double-standard you're employing: the claim that Ukraine's re-absorption into the MP was unjust is dubious, but the same exact principle when applied to Serbia as the Empire shrunk and then re-grew is EP Imperialism.
No double standard: I equally condemn the abolition of the catholicate of Georgia as being of dubious canonicity. Only the retention of the Georgian exarchate as part of the Holy Governing Synod ex officio saves it from being an act worthy of deposition.
I equally condemn the abolition of the EP of Serbia autocephaly, which the Serbia had to maintain in Austro-Hungary and Montengro (i.e. where the EP's Sultan couldn't reach) and reclaimed as the Sultan lost his grip. Ditto the Bulgarians.
At the time of autocephaly, the Metropolitan St. Jonas residing in Moscow was actually the Metropolitan of Kiev, just as the Patriarch of Antioch resides in Damascus for similar reasons. Kiev is the Metropolitan of All Ukraine, is it not? The EP tried to set up another metropolitan of Kiev, but at the time of the elevation of Moscow to a Patriarchate, the EP's man Mykhajlo Rohoza was busy submitting to the Vatican, which is how Kiev, Moscow and All Russia became autocephalous in the first place: the apostacy of Constantinople and the deposition of Isodore of Kiev, and the consecration of the rightful candidate St Jonas.
Btw, as has been mentioned, the EP Jeremiah II had thought that he himself would be Patriarch of Moscow when he came there to preside over the synod that elevated Moscow to a patriarchate. That he didn't get the job doesn't invalidate the PoM.