I don't follow your line of thought.
Regarding Échos d'Orient: Not only is its content irrelevant,
LOL. Au contraire: It remains my contention (and nothing that has happened, i.e. the treatment of the Church of Poland in Latin America by the Phanar's agent (treatment worse than that dished out to the OCA), does anything but support that) that the Phanar wants to sneak in the back window what it has failed to jam through the front door, i.e. the Tomos of 1908 and the novel
since a new procedure for autocephaly has been agreed upon,
We have some who say all Churches must affix their agreement to the Tomos.
We have some who say that the EP need only sign off on it, a la Tomos of 1908 and the report of 1907.
And then there's that problem that one autocephalous Church, i.e. the OCA, has not agreed nor signed its agreement to it. I know that Fr. Arey et alia is as found of saying "unanimous" prefixed to Chambesy as he is to saying "so-called" prefixed to OCA, but since we are not Hindus, mantras do not work.
It would seem the devil is in the details, which have not yet been hammered out: the OCA, no doubt, will serve as the anvil for that.
but the bolded part of the article has nothing to do with the granting of autocephaly.
It has to do with claims of "Mother Church," "Diaspora" and "Jurisdiction," and the concocting of the assertions of Universal Jurisdiction that the EP thinks he can still operate under.
Its concern is merely with the "appointment of the ecclesiastical [authorites]" in the diaspora, i.e. sending Bishops and establishing some kind of diocese, not with granting those dioceses autonomy or autocephaly.
Remember canon 8 of the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus?
Regarding the matter at hand: The new procedure is, at least according to Met. Hilarion, already agreed upon,
I'm sure in Moscow's mind it is, and Moscow will enforce it.
even by those who had initially argued for something else.
At most, I only see a change in tactics, not in outlook, from the Phanar.
The case is settled:
LOL. Not even the Phanar claims that: if you look at the agreements (the details, the details) these agreements are preparation for that ever coming Great Council, where the case is supposed to be settled.
All autocephalies, initiated by a Mother Church, must be agreed upon by all Orthodox Churches. If true, that means the consensus must be absolute. The only open question is: "Does this apply retroactively to the OCA?"
How could it, as not all
Orthodox Churches have affixed their seal to the Chambesy accord.
This would be clearer, perhaps, if Patriarch Alexei of blessed memory were still alive: the issue of Estonia, so near and dear to his heart (being, unlike the Phanar's Greek metropolitane from the Congo, Estonian) would have made a conclusive answer as for as Moscow was concerned. I doubt things have changed: did Patriarch Kyrill reitereate the directions to his parishes in North America concerning the diptychs?