Interfax IS a Russian source.
Yes, I'm aware of that. Now, do you care to explain away all the links from the EP's website that I posted? From the "Kyivan Patriarch"'s that I posted?
Apart from that, it is normal that Patriarch Bartholomew will express the hope that non-canonical people will become canonical again. But he did not say this means "submit to the MP".
Tell you what: you cough up a picture or article of the EP concellebrating with "Patriarch" Filoret or any of his "synod," or with the UAOC, or UAOCC, as he is with Met. Volodymyr in the links on the EP site, and I'll hold off from calling a spade a spade.
This computer I'm on right now freezes with a lot of sites, so I have to be careful what I open. But the statements coming out of Constantinople on the canonical jurisdiction in Ukraine haven't been a secret: Metropolitan Volodymyr is the only primate the EP has relations with in Ukraine, despite the attempts of uncanonical groups approaching the Phanar, and despite the fact that the Phanar has had no problem claiming the Ukrainian diaspora and setting up hierarchies in the jurisdiction of others, e.g. Estonia, no such hiearchy exists in Ukraine. Connect the dots.
Or did he ever revoke the 1924 tomos?
LOL. Moscow/Warsaw revoked the uncanonical 1924 Tomos for him. Btw, I am quite amused, of course, of how the schismatic Ukrainians claim that the Tomos of Poland set them free, whereas it recognizes West Ukraine as part of the Polish Church. Equally amuzing is that the very rational and reasoning of the Tomos itself "taking into consideration the structions of the holy canons, which have established that the system of church affairs should correspond with the political and community forms (IV Ecumenical Council, canon 17, VI Ecumenical Council, canon 38), as well as the reasoning of Photius: "It is acceptable that laws which relate to church affairs, and especially parish matters, should correspond with political and administrative changes" support the reunion of the Kievan Metropolitanate to its mother hiearch, the Patriarch of Moscow, in 1685.
As for the "autocephaly" of the OCA, it is not universally recognized.
Neither was Constantinople's for centuries: Rome insisted canons 3 of Constantinople I and 28 of Chalcedon were null and void. The Church moved on.
Georgia, the Church of Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, Russia, the Czech Lands and Slovakia....not one held their breath waiting for the EP. In Antioch, no one shrivled up and died when, in reaction to the Antiochians take the matter at hand and became masters of their own home again by throwing out the Phanariots, the Phanar and the rest of the Greek Church struck the Patriarch of Antioch from the diptychs. He stayed in the Orthodox diptychs of the other (at the time) ten autocephalous Churches of the Catholic Church.
The Phanar, at the time of the granting of autocephaly in 1970, tried to scold Moscow by pointing out that it wasn't autocephalous until the "Chrysobullos of 1589" (btw, does any one have a copy?). Patriarch Alexis pulled the rug under the EP claims by reminding him that Moscow became autocephalous in 1448, when Constantinople had apostacized over to heresy, and that the EP had come to Moscow himself to celebrate that in 1948. That it took the Phanar 141 years to recognize that fact officially didn't make it any less a de jure fact, let alone a de facto one.
Many local churches still consider the OCA to be part of the MP.
unfortunately the Phanar proved itself too clever by half with its Chambesy scheme. Now it is official, with the signatures of "All the local autocephalous Church" (as the Phanar's spokesmen were fond of emphasizing any point they could), that the OCA is not recognized by anyone as part of the MP, and yet recognized by them all as canonical. How long they think they can be "a little pregnant" isn't the OCA's problem nor concern.