Having said that, in USA, Canada, Western Europe, Australia it would be optimal and practical to have all existing diocesan structures operating for now until the complete unity will be achieved upon the blessing of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Flexibility must be a key. As for such countries as India, Indonesia, China, Pakistan - the optimal and effective way will be to have structures of the Ecumenical Patriarchate only. Of course, clergy may come from different Patriarchates and Local Churches. If for example, a widowed priest from Varna, Bulgaria or an OCA archimandrite from Chicago, IL, USA would become a Bishop of Mumbai, India per the decision of the Holy Synod of Constantinople, it will be only a win-win case. There are some Ukrainian priests serving in Africa as clergy of the Patriarchate of Alexandria. All territory of Africa belongs to the Patriarchate of Alexandria. This portion is not disputed by any interpretations of Canon 28.I want to make sure I'm understanding you so please let me know if my interpretation is off. Basically what get from this is all autocephalis Church (Moscow, Greece, Serbia etc..) remain independent but the rest of the world goes under the EP. Some such as North America with more varring degrees of autonomy than others until such time that the EP grants them autocephaly.
I want to make sure I'm understanding this right before commenting so I will not comment until you let me know. Thanks!
Sorry, actually I intended to say a somewhat different thing. Apologies for not being clear.
- All autocephalous Churches remain independent.
- In areas without united autocephalous Churches (North America, Western Europe, Australia), but with developed Orthodox presence, everything remains as it does now, ideally with increased efforts for unity. In other words, OCA keep its current status. Dioceses of Bulgarian, Romanian, Antiochian Patriarchates, etc. continue in the current status. However, activities for their unity should increase. When such unity becomes possible, the Ecumenical Patriarchate grants autocephaly to the united Orthodox structure in the country or in the region. At least such a scenario will not make situation more complicated.
- Africa remains the territory of the Patriarchate of Alexandria. A hypothetical possibility of establishment of Local Orthodox Churches in the continent remains within authority of the Patriarchate of Alexandria.
- Some countries (India, China, Vietnam, Laos) may have a minimal number of Orthodox parishes or no Orthodox parishes yet. In 2006 I was in Vietnam on Sunday of Orthodoxy and at least at that point of time, the country did not have any Orthodox communities. Instead of having (4) Local Orthodox Churches with (3) parishes each under the omophoron of a different Bishop abroad, may be even in Europe or in Middle East, it will be more efficient to have (1) ruling Bishop for all these (12) parishes. Clergy of these parishes may come from different countries, of course. It will be natural to have a Romanian Orthodox priest for the parish of Romanian expatriates. And this Romanian Orthodox priest can become a Chancellor or a pastor of the major cathedral with the services in local languages. Also, IMHO, it will be more practical and efficient if such new missionary Dioceses will be a part of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.