Above and beyond this being little more than a scheme to usurp the authority of Constantinople
No, Constantinople still has authority over herself and Thrace, Pontus, and Asia (in the Roman sense).
and the aforementioned problem of trying to lump, of any given two countries in the world, Japan and Korea together...heck, Iran and Israel might even be on better terms on a popular level. There seem to be a few other obvious problems to your plans.
Don't know about that Iran-Tel Aviv thing, but I agree that any union of Japan and Korea would have to be diluted by union with China, which raises other issues...
First, why would Greenland be grouped with North America, considering it's part of the Kingdom of Denmark? Not that I know of any large Orthodox presence there, but wouldn't it make more sense to group it with, say, I don't know, Denmark?
No, for one thing, Greenland, as can be seen on the map, or better globe, is in North America. Btw, come June it becomes its own country (in, ta-da, North America), already, by referendum (you know, that enlightenment thing) withdrawing from the EU (technically the EC) two decades ago. Since almost the whole population speaks Inuit, it shares cultural ties across the Baffin Straight, especially with Nunavut in Canada. Of course, that also makes it more in common with the Alaskan Orthodox, the overwhelming majority of whom are also Amerindian.
Oh, and being in North America, it's in the jurisdiction of the OCA.
Next, to suggest that any jursidiction can have even one parish within another jurisdiction is somewhat problematic, espeically the suggestion that they can have even more than that in Constantinople's jursidiction on Athos. Constantinople may indulge differences in rite amongst the monasteries, but it would be rather unbelievable to suggest that they shouldn't all be under her direct jursdiction.
They're called metochia, and everyone has them, and has had them for some time (St. Peter's in Rome is actually the metochion of Constantinople. Ironic, no?).
Then, to let every parish choose language, rite, AND calendar seems a bit extreme, what happened to "one bishop, one eucharist, one church'...yada, yada, yada.
The Phanariots happened to it. We all, except for the EP's Chief Secretary, know what that meant.
At the very minimum that should be subject to the bishop of the dioceses or you're asking for complete chaos, parish councils are bad enough as they are.
point taken. The way the OCA dealt with the Arabs, Albanians, and Romanians, and how Alexandria deals with the Arabs is instructive.
Then, of course, there's always my personal dissatisfaction with listing Cyprus so low in the dyptics, it may be only an Archepiscopacy;
I actually agree with you on this.
however, it's one of the six churches along with Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem that actually has a right to self-government by the authority of the Oecumenical Synods.
Actually, the Councils only recognized, not granted, that right. The canons make that clear.
The remainder only exist at the good pleasure of their mother churches,
I've posted a refutation of that from your friend the EP:http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15123.msg312137.html#msg312137
it has always seemed absurd that they should be ranked any lower than fifth in the dyptics (assuming Rome is not commemorated).
It's not a patriarchate. There is a lengthy account of the canonical consequences here:http://books.google.com/books?id=qCctAAAAYAAJ&printsec=toc#PPA247,M1
Then there's the question of why you'd place a hypothetical 'American church' in the dyptics before a Church of Ukraine, which is much more ancient and well established, with a far larger Orthodox Community.
I have to agree with you here too.
Where are your ideas?
Ukraine remains under Moscow.
Why? It seems Moscow doesn't even think so now (Ukraine has the most independence, short the Church of Japan, which is for obvious reasons and history).
Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Macedonia, all return to Constantinople.
No thanks. They've all (except maybe Greece) had enough of Phanariots. If anything, Greece is the only one not playing nice. There are no problems between Serbia and Romania (although Serbia has some parishes on Romanian territory), no problems between Romania and Bulgaria. Macedonia is a problem of sorts between Bulgaria and Serbia, but a solvable one. The problem with Greece and the Phanar is another isssue.
Lord willing, I'm going to post a thread on the autocephaly of Romania as a case study.
Poland should return to Moscow, although I think it was originally established by the EP.
Why should it return to Moscow. And no, the EP did meddle in it, but did not establish it.
I agree that Western Europe (but including Greenland and Svalbard...not that it really matters given their lack of Orthodox faithful) and Australia should be under the EP, but I see no need for them to be autonomous churches. What is there to warrant us such a status?
Present reality. And evangelism.
The various jurisdictions in the United States and Canada should merge, but I am not in favour of its autocephaly.
Why not? And who do you have in mind to oversee that merged North American Church?
Colour-wise, I don't see anything wrong with the rest of your map, but don't really see why every single diocese needs to be granted autonomy.
Ecclesiology. It seems that the patriarchy has disfigured the episcopacy, as Antioch just demonstrated.
So that the Churches could be ruled in the way they want and simulateously being uned omophorion under more serious and serious (don't know how to name it) jurisdictions.
What exactly do you mean by being ruled in the way they want? Why does an archdiocese need independence (partial or total) from its Patriarch in order to properly care for its flock?
I completely haven't got any idea why to cancel all autocephalies and return Polish Church (which used firstly to be an autonomous Churh under Constantinople) to Moscow.
Because I believe the establishments of churches along ethnic or national lines is divisive and harmful.
Really? The times I can see that in history have been harmful are the examples of the Phanar suppressing the Patriarchates of the Bulgarians and Serbs for the Ottomans, and St. Petersburg suppressing the autocephaly of Georgia. Any other examples of it being bad?
Was not Poland under Moscow before it became an autonomous church of the EP in 1924?
After the abolition of the Orthodox Church in Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, and before the integation of the Cossacks into the Russian Empire, Kiev was detached from Moscow (the Metropolitan of Kiev actually lived in Moscow, the reason why the Met. of Kiev give the staff of St. Peter (who made the move to Moscow permanent) to the PoM in his enthronement) and made an exarchate of Constantinople, at least according to Constantinople.