Is there such a thing? It seems the parish in question was (and is) within the jurisdiction of Antioch.
Was. Now it's in jurisdiction of the JP diocese. This is what's this thread is about, isn't it.
No, it's not, at least not according to the standard the Patriarchate of Jerusalem uses, based on the Sacred Canons of the Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils:
Regarding the status of the church and the pilgrim’s hostel in Jericho, the Romanian Patriarchate should remain the owner of these buildings, while the spiritual, liturgical and ecclesiastical use of these buildings should depend on the canonical blessing of the Patriarch of Jerusalem:
a) The priests serving in the church of these buildings should be appointed by the Patriarch of Jerusalem on the basis of recommendation of the Patriarch of Romania. It is of course understood that the Patriarch of Jerusalem may Himself or with his clergy liturgically use this church whenever he decides to do so;
b) All priests celebrating the Divine Liturgy in the church should commemorate at the anaphora (ἐν πρώτοις μνήσθητι) only the Patriarch of Jerusalem, while at the Great Entrance the priests may commemorate also the name of the Patriarch of Romania;
c) The Antimision will be received from the Patriarch of Jerusalem.
And, for the parties directly invovled:
The Romanian Patriarchate will avoid in the future to build churches or shrines on the canonical territory of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem without written agreement.
Concerning the status of Archimandrite Ieronim Creţu, who was deposed from the rank of priesthood, it was agreed that the Patriarchate of Jerusalem will lift up this canonical measure, and the Romanian Patriarchate will call him back to Romania
Fathers of the Third Ecumenical Council of Ephesus
c. 8. Our fellow Bishop Reginus, most beloved by God, and with him the most God-beloved Bishops of the province of the Cypriotes Zeno and Evagrius, has announced an innovation, a thing which is contrary to the ecclesiastical laws and the Canons of the Holy Apostles, and one which touches the freedom of all. Hence, since common ailments require more drastic treatment, on the ground that they do greater damage, and especially in view of the fact that the Bishop of Antioch, far from following the ancient custom, has been performing the ordinations in Cyprus, according to information given in libelli and by oral statements made by most pious gentlemen who have approached the Holy Council; therefore those who preside over the churches in Cyprus shall retain their privilege unaffected and inviolate, according to the Canons of the Holy Fathers and ancient custom, whereby they shall themselves perform the ordinations of the most reverent Bishops. The same rule shall hold good also with regard to the other diocese and churches everywhere, so that none of the Bishops most beloved by God shall take hold of any other province that was not formerly and from the beginning in his jurisdiction, or was not, that is to say, held by his predecessors. But if anyone has taken possession of any and has forcibly subjected it to his authority, he shall regive it back to its rightful possessor, in order that the Canons of the Fathers be not transgressed, nor the secular fastus be introduced, under the pretext of divine services; lest imperceptibly and little by little we lose the freedom which our Lord Jesus Christ, the Liberator of all men, has given us as a free gift by His own blood. It has therefore seemed best to the holy and Ecumenical Council that the rights of every province, formerly and from the beginning belonging to it, be preserved clear and inviolable, in accordance with the custom which prevailed of yore; each Metropolitan having permission to take copies of the proceedings for his own security. If, on the other hand, anyone introduce any form conflicting with the decrees which have now been sanctioned, it has seemed best to the entire holy and Ecumenical Council that it be invalid and of no effect.
Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople
c. 4. As concerning Maximus the Cynic, and the disturbance caused by him in Constantinople, it is hereby decreed that Maximus neither became nor is a Bishop, and that neither are those ordained by him entitled to hold any clerical rank whatsoever. Let everything connected with him or done by him be annulled.
The decision of Patriarch John of Antioch and All the East, March 13, 2013
1- The decision of the Jerusalem Patriarchate to establish an Archbishopric on a territory which belongs to the Holy Synod of Antioch is, without question, an illegal interference from the Jerusalem Patriarchate in the territorial jurisdiction of the Antiochian Church, thus breaking the ecclesiastical canons that regulate the relationship among Orthodox Churches.
On the other hand, the Orthodox parish in Doha, Qatar, is composed of Orthodox faithful from various nationalities. We are grateful that Archimandrite
Makarios provided all necessary pastoral care to this particular parish, but it was a temporary arrangement to facilitate this pastoral activity, no more and no less. This pastoral arrangement cannot be taken as giving any ecclesiastical privilege, of any sort, to the Patriarchate of Jerusalem or to any other Orthodox Church. Again, the Arab Gulf falls under the canonical and ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Antioch and all the East.The Antiochian Church refuses to accept the action taken by the Jerusalem Patriarchate, and will not recognize any bishop on the territory of the country of Qatar outside the authority of the Antiochian Apostolic See
, and asks that the Patriarchate of Jerusalem should resolve his matter as soon as possible. The Antiochian Church hopes not to have to take a stand leading to the breaking of communion with the Jerusalem Patriarchate. She also hopes not to have to reconsider the principles governing the Orthodox Church relations and the Geneva agreements which have been set by the preparatory committees of the upcoming Great and Holy Orthodox Synod, especially those dealing with the Orthodox worldwide(Diaspora).
Where was the antimens from?