It was more than theoretical-at the time Czechoslovakia included Carpatho-Russia/Transcarpathia (as you mention below in the post War context), and the ones returning to Orthodoxy had been under Karlovci-Serbian, not ROCOR-in Austria Hungary.
Well, first it was theoretical in Prague, since we had canonic basis for establishin Parish there, but... we did not have any prior 1921...Patriarchate of Peć, and subsequently Metroplis of Karlovci, had bishoprics in Dalmatia, in Southern Hungary, in Hungary, Transilvania, Croatia... also there were parishes in Austrian Crown Lands (Trieste, Istria, Ljubljana, Wien), but not in Bohemia. Prior to Užgorod Union, I think Orthodox Ruthenians were under Constantinople. Which is bit odd since rest of Kingdom of Hungary was under Serbian Patriarch of Peć then. (1646). Nevertheless, in 1920s.. mission of Serbian Church which was including ROCOR priests (since ROCOR considered herself to be under temporary Jurisdiction of Archbishop of Peć and Patriarch of Serbia, and operated from its headquarters in Kingdom fo Yugoslavia, and First Hierarch of ROCOR was assisting Serbian Patriarch in consecrations of bishops, and one of Serbian bishops participated in consecrations of ROCOR ones...) returned number of Greek Catholics to Orthodoxy.
Bukowina, having theoretical jurisdiction in Austria (which at the time included Bohemia, i.e. the Czech Lands) abandoned its claims after it joined into the Patriarchate of Romania.
Metropolis of Bukowina was granted independence, not autocephaly by Austrian Court... they were before 1870 part of Metropolis of Karlovci... also two Eparchies in Dalmatia were attached to it, same with Serbian and Greek parishes in Slovenia and modern Austria... but if I remember correctly, act of Emperor stated that in spiritual matters, Patriarch (since of 1848, Metropolitan of Karlovci claimed Patriarchal title), had supreeme authority in matters of faith... Whatever right over Czechia Metropolis of Bukowina had, it was weak one.
The Carpatho-Russians tipped the Czech-Slovaks into the Eastern Rite, they had been WRO.
Hm, not quite right. Before joining Serbian Church, Fr Matej's group (future St. Hieromartyr Gorazd of Prague), belonged to Czechoslovak National Church, RCC renegade grupation. Its leader Karel Farsky was Arian... hence Serbian Church refused his request for ordination... Group of Orthodox minded ex-RCC priests, and laity decided to go directly to Bishop Dositej of Niš, and they were recieved in Serbian Church. From verry begining, liturgical books of SOC were translated in Czech. So, in no time, Bishopric of Prague, future Metropolis, was WRO...
Fr Matej Pavlik was recieved in Orthodoxy 20th september of 1921, through confession, as ordained priest. Next day, he was tonsured monk, and 22th he was made Archimandrite and Igumen of Monastery Grgeteg (in Serbia). He was Ordained Bishop of Prague by Patriarh Dimitrije, Metropolitan Antoniy of Kiev, and seven Serbian bishops. From that time, he established parishes who exclusively used Byzantine rite, in Church Slavonic, and later in Czech. It should be noted that EP was happy to mess into and ordain Svatiy Vrabec (Orthodox Czech, grwon and educated in Russia), in 1923 as Archbishop of Czechoslovakia, but Czech peopla and State refused to acknowledge Abp Savatiy..
If you are interested run this through Google Translate:http://www.pravoslavlje.rs/broj/1009/tekst/sveti-gorazd-ceski/
Pat. Tikhon and the Russian Holy Synod ordered the Karlovski Synod to disband, which in obedience they did. Having questioned if the Patriarch did so under duress, they reconstituted themselves. Unfortunately, you cannot unring a bell.
Acctually they did not question, to put it simply they played dummies.
1. Во исполнение Указа его Святейшества Святейшего Тихона Патриарха Московского и всея Руси и Святейшего при нём Синода от 24 апреля (5 мая) 1922 года за № 348 существующее Высшее Русское Церковное Управление упразднить;http://nature.web.ru/db/msg.html?mid=1188521
In accordance with Ukaz of His Holliness the Most Holy Tihon, Patriarch of Mosocw and Entire Rus', and Most Holy Synod in session with him, from 24th of April (5th of May) of 1922 year, № 348, existing Higher Russian Eclesiastical Governance body is to be abolished.
2. Для организации новой Высшей церковной власти созвать Русский Всезаграничный Собор 21 ноября 1922 года;
With goal of establishment of new Supreeme ecclesiastical government, Russian Abroad Sobor is to be convoced for 21st of November of 1922.
3. В целях сохранения правопреемства Высшей Церковной власти образовать Временный Заграничный Архиерейский Синод РПЦ за границей с обязательным участием митрополита Евлогия, каковому Синоду и предать все права и полномочия Русского Церковного Управления за границей;
With goal of preservation Supreme Ecclesiasitacal governance Temporary Synod of Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is to be established, with mandatory participation of Metropolitan Evlogiy, and therefore to this Synod all rights and authority of Russian Ecclesiastical Governance Body are going to be transfered.
6. Об образовании Временного Архиерейского Синода довести до сведения Святейшего Патриарха Тихона и всех глав Автокефальных церквей, а также российских посланников
Most Holy Patriarch Tihon and all heads of Autocephalous Churches are to be informed about establishment of Temproary Sobor of Hierarchs, and together with them all Russian Ambasadors
The Ukaz of the Supreme Church Authority as defined by Ukaz 362 put Met. Platon in charge of North America, something the All American Sobor (which had chosen Abp. Alexander previously as primate, confirmed by the same Supreme Church Authority) concurred with. Is there any question that Patriarch Tikhon and the Holy Synod of Russia were under duress in January 1924, particular when issuing ukazes against prelates for "anti-Soviet" activity?
Problem is, Metropolitan Platon found himself isolated not only from Moscow, but from all of others.
If ukazes issued under duress are valid and binding, what justification did ROCOR have against Met. Sergius' dictates to them? What was Ukaz 362 issued for in the first place?
Did I claim that ROCOR was right in their stance? No. But neither OCA is.
In 1946 the OCA was going to re-establish direct contact with the Supreme Church Authority in Moscow, for which they broke their ties-or rather, they were broken-with ROCOR. When Moscow demanded Soviet loyalty, showing that the Supreme Churth Authority operated under duress, autonomy as envisioned in Ukaz 362 continued.
They have no right to grant themselves Autonomy. Also, dont forget, they added new canonical irregularity, they intruded in Metropolis of Japan.
Which is a plurality. Russia's sole legitimate jurisdiction in the Rus' Lands was not recognized by all until 155 years after the fact.
To waht exactly you are pointing? In 1448 Russia declared Autocephaly, but Constantinople did not dare to break Communion. Patriarchate of Constantinople transfered Metropolis of Kiev (not original one, which is Patriarchate of Moscow, but Greek Catholic readmitted in orthodoxy after 1470), in 1686...
Anyway, I dont think situation is similar. In 1686, three Eastern Patriarchs were only amening what Constantinople said, similarily with Archbishopric of Cyprus. Patriarchate of Peć and Catholicosate of Mchet had no substantial interest in matter. Also, I think Russian Church offered to OCA, to return under omophorion of Patriarch of Moscow, recently on basis autocpehaly is not recognised, and even disputed.
not over North America they didn't.
Oh yes they did. In 1935, Metropolitan Theopil signed Temproary Provision about Russian Orthodox Church Abroad... where it was explicitely stated he was under authority of Karovački Synod...http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/documents/polozhenie1936.html
After 1970, ROCOR was in Communion only with Jerusalem and Serbia.
It does not make OCA's standing any bit more canonical...