*sigh*again you misunderstand what I am trying to say. I was making an analogy with another "Orthodox church" that actually did believe they were just as Orthodox as the other Orthodox jurisdictions of the Eastern Orthodox church and how they didn't believe that "apostolic succession" was that important and how they were picking and choosing the parts of the faith that they liked. As with you how you believe that and I'm quoting you here "I do believe my Synod (Milan Synod) is canonical in the truest sense of the word, or I wouldn't be part of it" now the analogy was that being canonical also requires to be in communion with the other churches of the Eastern Orthodox church and you define this differently then we do.
Being "canonical" doesn't require communion with *anyone*, if *everyone* is in heresy. Now, I have never gone so far as to say that. But you are stating a requirement of canonicity under normal circumstances. Under abnormal circumstances, such as a massive apostasy on the part of many in the hierarchy, such a criterion for canonicity is not only not valid, but precisely dangerous.
Let me give you an example. In the 1724, the new Patriarch of Antioch, after an open election, declared himself in union with Rome, and the majority of Bishops joined with Rome. Immediately a few and some monastics appealed for help from Jerusalem, and *Jerusalem* intervened and eventually created a new hierarchy for the Church. Now, hindsight is a lovely thing, especially 200+ years in the making. Now can you explain to me how if you were in communion with Antioch at the time, separation would have been the canonical thing to do?
Now, you can say that this is an extreme example, that this has not occurred. I am aware of that. My point in such an extreme example is that "shared communion" is the lowest sub-criterion of canonicity-- it requires canonically elected Bishops sharing the Apostolic faith because otherwise without both, the next criterion as you would imply-- shared communion-- is impossible. You have focused on the first part; the second being more nuanced.
The reasons for the creation of the Greek Old Calendar Church, the Catacomb Church in Russia (and later the Free Church) vary, but they were for explicit reasons of faith, whether justifiable or not. I am not asking you to determine that based on anything I said. I assume you have, as have I, or you would not bandy around a word like "schismatic". But from a canonical standpoint, circumstances can make the existence of these Churches justifiable. Whether you agree they are justified-- not important to me. What is important is that you don't think that I joined the True Orthodox jurisdictions because I want to be an angry crank. I did so for what I believe are sufficiently legitimate reasons of faith that I opt deliberately not to go to the "local Greek Church" down the street.
Whether the EOC people did that or not I don't know. I don't think so-- I believe they were trying to get recognized, confirmed in their Protestant "conversions" by an official Church. Russia chose not to recognize such conversions. Antioch, by contrast, blessed them. I am not making judgments on the matter.
Just saying you have compared apples with cars in this case.