The Spirit is descended!
The "provisional" part is that it is a parallel jurisdiction to others already there. There is no heresy here. There is a different reading of the canons.
The Vatican has different readings of the canons as well.
The Phanar set up its own jurisdiction, the Greek Orthodox Metropolitinate of France 30 years after the 1931 Tomos to Met. Eulogius, and we must remember that a) Moscow has originally named Met. Eulogius as its exarch in France before the 1931 Tomos, b) Met. Eulogius was not the first Russian exarch in France. In fact, the jurisdiction of the Russian Church dates from the days of the Czars.
So the Phanar, except for the years 1945-6, had its exarchate in France for 30 years before it set up a Greek one. Why couldn't Arb. George Tarassov, bishop of the Patriarchal Exarchate for Orthodox Parishes of Russian Tradition in Western Europe in 1961, have been made Metropolitan of France? Why did he have to remain "bishop of Syracuse"? Was it because he was ordained deacon and priest before the Tomos of 1931 by Met. Eulogius when he was still exarch for the Moscow Patriarchate/the Russian Church? Why, a few years after the establishment of the "Greek Orthodox Metropolitanate of France,"
The Exarchate was closed by Patriarch Athenagoras I through a letter dated 22 November 1965, with an assembly meeting 16–18 February 1966 noting that such provisional ethnic structures were no longer necessary, given that the passage of several generations had allowed immigrants to become accustomed to their new lands, which were now made up of more and more converts to the faith.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchal_Exarchate_for_Orthodox_Parishes_of_Russian_Tradition_in_Western_Europe
Yeah, I'm sure the "Greek Orthodox Metropolitinate of France" isn't ethnic.
Why wasn't the Phanar's jurisdiction based on the Patriarchal Exarchate for Orthodox Parishes of Russian Tradition in Western Europe, seeing as it was the largest Orthodox group in France? Why instead was it demoted to a deanery for the upstart "Greek Orthodox Metropolitinate of France"? which, btw, has a bishop with the title of France, and not some dead see.
Why is the exarch-archbishop mandated in the new tomos to consult with the Greek Metropolitan "who sits in this country" (whereas the exarch-archbishop sits in Eucarpia and other dead sees, the Greek Metropolitan sits in France)?
On the official web site it is claimed that Met. Emmanuel "It retains the direction of the representation of the Orthodox Church
to the EU."http://metropolegrecque.typepad.com/blog/m%C3%A9tropolite.html
(He, however, only represents the Greek Church. Met. Hilarion doesn't take order from him when he represents Moscow to the EU.) Why didn't the head of the "accustomed" Orthodox of Western Europe be nominated to represent "the Orthodox Church" to the EU?
I think the answer is easily seen, from the first line, in the heavy
dependence of the 1999 Tomos on the canon 28 myth, and espeically how, on that basis, it doesn't see anything provisional nor unusual with Russians being under the Phanar and not Moscow, and under its junior metropolitan of France.