Reading over the OCA Tomos issued from the MP I found this interesting section. I am wondering how this
stipulation was addressed in terms of what ROCOR and the MP have recently agreed upon. Seems to me there is a contractual problem:
The Tomos of Autocephaly
. . . . . . . . 7. The Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America shall have exclusive spiritual and canonical jurisdiction over all bishops, clerics and laymen of the Eastern Orthodox confession in continental North America, excluding Mexico, and including the State of Hawaii who are presently part of the Metropolitanate, or who shall later enter the Metropolitanate; and over all parishes which now belong or later shall be accepted into the Metropolitanate, excepting the entire clergy, possessions and parishes enumerated in Paragraph 3, points a,b,c.
You mention a "contractual problem." Would not the Tomos be invalid since there was no consultation with the majority of the Orthodox on the American territory? The Greeks and the Antiochians and other Orthodox in America were not involved, and were not invited to be involved, in the creation of this "autocephaly" for a minority group.
It was a unilateral declaration by a minority Church group in America and its validity is questionable.
As you may know ROCA has just formed a commission to study its historical relationship with the Metropolia/OCA. An OCA clergyman submitted these thoughts today in an Orthodox news group:
'Actually, I think -- just a hunch -- that the ROCOR people are preparing to brace themselves for an influx of ex-OCAers, and they need to articulate a clear stance toward us and our occasionally shared history.
'I've long believed that if our current confusion isn't resolved PDQ, our more 'traditional' types will gravitate to the ROCOR, and our more 'progressive' types to the AOCA.