Isa, that is the most convoluted post you've ever made. I can't make sense of it. Try again as if to be read by a person with little patience and with meager mental abilities, such as I.
Isa, my brother,
I have to agree with Aristokles. As conversant as I am with the ecclesial politics involved, you pretty much lost me except for your point that a Ukrainian bishop from the Old Country would be an unacceptable choice. (Have to say, my friend, that 'non-existent Ruthenians' - whatever point it is intended to convey - comes across as an unwarranted insult to the Carpatho-Rusyn faithful of ACROD.)
LOL. Sorry, I should have put that in quotation marks, as it was sarcasm: I've been defending the existence of Ruthenians on a number of threads lately against those who deny it. Which is why I think that a Ukrainian bishop would be unacceptable (a ("Great") Russian bishop would be unwise, and given the history of why ACROD isn't in the OCA (bishops confusing Russophilia with the desire to be Russified), perhaps also unacceptable). Unacceptable to the Ruthenian faithful, who do exist, and of whom I see no difference in opinion with the public opinion in Zakarpattia.
Major Archbishop Sviatoslav speaks of Bp. Milan of Mukacheve as if he is a member of the UGCC synod. He's there as an observer, a point that many Ruthenians do not see emphasized enough. Given the near absolute adherence to the PoM in Zakarpattia >95% in the furthest West region of West Ukraine, I don't see any difference on the other side of Uzhhorod. So a bishop from there might please the Ruthenians here, though given the present state of affairs between the PoM and the EP, I don't see that happening. Particularly as it might raise the issue that if the bishop is from the PoM, why isn't ACROD under it in North America as its Mother Church, and not the EP? (which would also stir up the canonical question of the UOCUSA and UOCC, its Mother Church and the PoM and EP).
Given that most Ukrainians of whatever stripe look at the Ruthenians the way the Ukrainians claim the Russians look on the Ukrainians, a Ukrainian bishop from the rest of the Ukraine would bring that problem in, along with the issues of the PoM/EP.
Receiving someone from the UOC-KP or UAOCC etc., do I need to spell out the problems with that?
but just to be clear
The Synod of dissident Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kyiv Patriarchate, led by the former Russian Orthodox Metropolitan of Kiev, Filaret, has published a letter to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and Patriarch Kyrill of Moscow concerning the work of the Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission that dealt with the issues of autocephaly and autonomy. The letter has an interesting reference to the OCA. The Ukrainian Synod points out:
“In fact, the participants of the session in Chambésy, among the other, took the trouble of determining the future destiny of the Orthodox Churches of Ukraine, Macedonia and Montenegro, Orthodox Church in America, as well as the destiny of the Orthodox Church in Japan, Moldavia, and Estonia. But no representatives of these Churches were involved either officially or unofficially in elaboration of the decisions which are of importance for their further being. It is obvious that such way of discussion of important issues of ecclesiastical life does not comply either with the spirit of the God’s justice and of the Gospel’s brotherly love (?f. John 7:51), or with the practice of the Ecumenical and pious Local Councils, where at even indubitable heretics had a chance to express their stance.” (emphasis in the original)
The Councils of the Kyiv Patriarchate have repeatedly turned to the Church of Constantinople, which is historically the Mother for the Ukrainian Church, with a request to consider the question of recognition of autocephaly of the Ukrainian Church. But these requests have been also left without due consideration and response by the present.http://www.cerkva.info/en/documents/12/104-chambesy.html
On top of all these problems is that the successor of Bp. Nicholas would have had a seat on SCOBA, which is only in the process of obsolescence it seems and where Met. Jonah of the OCA has a seat, and supposedly would have a seat on the Executive Committee of the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of North and Central America, which seems not to have been ironed out, as said committee is nowhere to be found on the ACOBNCA official website.
Despite protestations of Fr. Arey to the contrary, we do know that there is a controversy about the executive committee lacking the first/primatial hierarch of the OCA, which has been downplayed, e.g. by the Secratary of the ACOBNCA
Matthew: We’ve heard various things, reports, about the Executive Committee of the assembly, but my understanding is that the voting is actually done by the whole assembly. Is that right? The assembly itself is where the power lies essentially. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?rlz=1T4TSHB_enUS238US238&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=12022l24145l0l24591l14l14l1l12l0l0l220l220l2-1l1l0&hl=en&q=cache:nN86M_PAAyEJ:http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/features/bishop_basil_and_the_episcopal_assemblies+executive+committee+assembly+of+orthodox+bishops+Justinian&ct=clnk
Bishop Basil: The word “Executive Committee” was not even mentioned. You didn’t hear those words at all during the whole Episcopal Assembly. What constitutes the members of the Executive Committee—there’s a lot of speculation and a lot of talk going on about it, but those words were not even mentioned at the Episcopal Assembly because it is so secondary. Its importance is so secondary, or even tertiary to the work of the assembly and its committees. Unlike what we Americans generally think of as an Executive Committee being just the officers, the chair, the vice-chairs, the secretary, and treasurer, that’s not what the Chambesy document defines as the Executive Committee. It’s that: it’s the officers, but then the heads of the Mother Churches representatives in this country. So that those who are not officers—for instance, Metropolitan Christopher is the senior hierarch of the Serbian Orthodox Church, he’s not an officer of the Episcopal Assembly, but as the senior hierarch of the Serbian Orthodox Patriarchate, he would be a member of the Executive Committee. But it’s really just for consultation, no decisions will be made by the executive committee, everything has to be referred back to the Episcopal Assembly. That’s why I believe it wasn’t even discussed at this meeting at all.
I don’t want to say it’s not important because it did come from Chambesy so I assume it has some function...
His Grace goes on, but the executive committee is never fleshed out, although we know, as HG says, that it is mandated by Chambesy. Were it not for Met. Jonah's non-membership, we would have have nothing definite on the composition of it. We can assume that Arbp. Demetrios is on it, as well as Met. Philip. But beyond that, it gets murky. You would think that Abp. Justinian would be on it, but since he commemorates Met. Jonah (along with Pat. Kiril) that just underlines the oddity of Met. Jonah not being on. Is Met. Hilarion on it? He didn't have a seat on SCOBA, but with Act of Canonical Communion, Abp. Justinian (or rather, his predecessor) got a seat:how different is Met. Hilarion's self rule from ACROD's?
Which brings up the issue that ACROD and the other EP jurisdictions, including UOCUSA, had a seat on SCOBA, do they have one on the Executive Committee? And if they do, why doesn't Met. Jonah? The enthronement of the successor to Bp. Nicholas will force an answer to this question, as he has to take up all the new duties, and will be seen doing so. It that means taking his place on the executive committe, it will be noticed (whereas Bp. Nicholas, predating the Executive Committee, was not). So to if one of Met. Jonah's suffragans is translated to ACROD and takes a seat on the executive committee.
Then there is the problem that Met. Sotirios of Toronto wants no part of ACOBNCA, and is taking Canada out of it (at least trying, so far he has just boycotted it), but ACROD has parishes in Canada as well as the US. Not many, but since Bishop Iliya of Philomelion has two Albanian parishes to earn him a seat on SCOBA, how many do you need? That issue hasn't been resolved. If the relations between ACROD and UOC-C are anything like the UGCC and the Vatican's Ruthenians, given the larger share of the Ukrainians of the Canadian Orthodox pie and the fraternal relations with the UOCUSA, that is another piece of the puzzle no one wants to put together.
As for Slovakia, it has a sympathy with the OCA: the EP denied its autocephaly for decades, interfered in its affairs, had to depend on support from the PoM, etc. Being also a minority faith in its country, the Church of CzLS (which recognizes the OCA) has a lot of ties to the OCA which a bishop from Slovakia might strengthen, which many would not like to see. Further it would strengthen the ties of ACROD to a "Mother Church" not the Phanar, something the Phanar doesn't want (one reason it won't recognize a UOC seperate from the PoM in Ukraine, to which UOCC and UOCUSA would attache themselves over Constantinople).
I don't know if the delay is intentional, with an eye to ACROD going down with the rest of PA and "solving" the problem that way (a final solution a bishop will stop), but circumstances do not favor speeding up a successor being in enthroned for many interests not the Carpatho-Russians.