The concept of an independent self-ruling jurisdiction is a myth...every authority is derived from a source and the authority can never exceed that of its source. Constantinople is not inherently independent, there is no natural right for it to be independent of, say, Alexandria...the independence (and authority) of Constantinople is derived from and dependent on the Oecumenical Synods; a synod of equal authority could, at a whim, withdraw the independence, strip the bishops of their titles, disband the synod of Constantinople, and subject them to the rule of another see. To deny this would undermine the authority of the Oecumenical Synod and, therefore, legally declare that the Church had never had the right to exist.
Likewise, the indepence of the Metropolia is dependent on the synod of Moscow having such authority over them. To deny the right to withdraw this independence is to essentially deny this authority, the authority which is the source of their independence. To do so would essentially deny that they had ever had any right to exist.
Ah, history strikes again:
Nicea, c. VILet the ancient customs
in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail
, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary
for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges
. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.
c. VIISince custom and ancient tradition have prevailed
that the Bishop of Ælia [i.e., Jerusalem] should be honoured, let him, saving its due dignity to the Metropolis, have the next place of honour.
Ephesus c. VIII
Our brother bishop Rheginus, the beloved of God, and his fellow beloved of God bishops, Zeno and Evagrius, of the Province of Cyprus, have reported to us an innovation which has been introduced contrary to the ecclesiastical constitutions and the Canons of the Holy Apostles, and which touches the liberties of all.
Wherefore, since injuries affecting all require the more attention, as they cause the greater damage, and particularly when they are transgressions of an ancient custom
; and since those excellent men, who have petitioned the Synod, have told us in writing and by word of mouth that the Bishop of Antioch has in this way held ordinations in Cyprus; therefore the Rulers of the holy churches in Cyprus shall enjoy, without dispute or injury, according to the Canons of the blessed Fathers and ancient custom
, the right of performing for themselves the ordination of their excellent Bishops. The same rule shall be observed in the other dioceses and provinces everywhere, so that none
of the God beloved Bishops shall assume control of any province which has not heretofore, from the very beginning, been under his own hand or that of his predecessors. But if any one has violently taken and subjected [a Province], he shall give it up; lest the Canons of the Fathers be transgressed; or the vanities of worldly honour be brought in under pretext of sacred office; or we lose, without knowing it, little by little, the liberty which Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Deliverer of all men, hath given us by his own Blood.
Wherefore, this holy and ecumenical Synod has decreed that in every province the rights which heretofore, from the beginning, have belonged to it, shall be preserved to it, according to the old prevailing custom, unchanged and uninjured
: every Metropolitan having permission to take, for his own security, a copy of these acts. And if any one shall bring forward a rule contrary to what is here determined, this holy and ecumenical Synod unanimously decrees that it shall be of no effect.
Constrast this to Constantinople I c. III
The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome.
Chalcedon c. XXVIII
Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him.http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.toc.html
Not all Churches are created equal. The positions of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch (and Cyprus) predate the Councils, which just recognized their established rights. Constantinople's postion was totally created by the Councils, which had the power to do so. Jerusalem's position is in between.
So in a sense, yes, Alexandria has a natural right to be independent, and no, it would be subject to the whim of an Ecumenical Council, as her rights were not so derived. Constantinople is a different story.
This doesn't undermine the authority of the Ecumenical Synod, as the Church existed before them, and she had the inherent authority to hold the Synods.
You are correct to state that the situation of the OCA (its not the metropolia anymore, btw) is akin to Constantinople. I would of course hasten to add a detail I am sure is in the back of your mind but did not state: Moscow's situation is akin to the OCA vis-a-via Constantinople. Given your previous statements, I am concluding that you believe then of course, following logical progression, that nonsense about Constanipole's right over the US, canon XXVIII, blah, blah, blah.
Sorry, I have no authority over my sons to dictate how many grandchildren I'll have (some time off, God willing, my oldest is still grammar school), nor how they will raise them, beyond raising my sons right now. As we say in Egypt, when your son has grown, treat him like a brother. Few things are more pathetic than parents who refuse to recognize their children have grown.
Or do you think that the US government has to fear that Her Majesty ER II will withdraw their independence?