I acknowledge (sp?) a reason for ROCOR's existence after communism's advent.
I believe that ROCOR is a "real" Church.
I have verified for myself that ROCOR is in communion with the Patriarch of Serbia (some on Orthodox-Forum have claimed otherwise).
As far as canonical, how can I judge that? I am not a canon law expert or even a student! (we don't take that until next year here at St. Vlad's!)
At best I'd have to say that ROCOR's standing is "valid but irregular." "Valid" in that it is in union with another Orthodox Church. Irregular in that it exists in schism and in competition with its mother Church (ie it has parishes in Russia, for instance). I can't justify being under communists during the Cold War, and I can't justify them being in schism from the mother church now. But I also see some's fear that things haven't really changed for the better in Moscow. It is very confusing.
I think ROCORians are Orthodox, but their hierarchs are in an irregular position. They are a particular Church without boundaries or definition. That being the case, and the OCA not being in communion with them, I don't see a reason for the OCA to necessarily *have* to abide by their decisions.
Let me give you an analogy: the SSPX is a group in technical schism from Rome, but still considered by Rome to be Catholic, albeit irregular. The SSPX grants annulments, which Rome says it technically can't do, it not being a group that has dioceses, but is really supposedly just a big religious order. Now the SSPX does go ahead with those annulments, and sometimes Rome will consider them valid if the annulee later returns to visible communion with Rome. Other times, Rome doesn't accept them. It's at their discretion. So the OCA, in my opinion, can use economia and the right of an autocephelous Church to do as it pleases. (my analogy is weak in that in the OCA vs. ROCOR feud, neither side is clearly wrong).
As for the Kiev Patriarchate, my views on them are cautious but not condemnatory, for instance as some people's are. Their faithful can be received into the canonical Orthodox Church without chrismation, so there's someting there. Yet they are dividing the faithful, which is not good. Why I favor having those two KP bishops join the OCA is they might be able to bring their monastery, and their clergy, and their faithful with them.
Please don't try to make my views more important than they are, though. These are only my opinions. Here is a summary of my views:
1) Totally Canonical, Totally Regular Orthodox: Great!
2) Totally Valid, Somewhat irregular* ROCOR: Good!
3) Kiev Patriarchate: Cautious...
4) Vagante (ordained to Church without a historical community): YUCK!
* in itself a relative position: irregular according to whom?