How about when Constantinople is unable or unwilling to follow the Great Commanment of Christ to "baptize all nations"?
Ah yes, the sensualistic approach. The fact that you have an emotional sympathy with the actions of Moscow does not change that they were uncanonical and unacceptable.
Yes, we've heard your arguments based on anachronistic canons, the Ecumenical Synods, etc., but I don't think you have addressed the "ought" or "should" of what HAS happened? ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Should Moscow have never even attempted to missionize lands that were part of their nation's boundaries that I'm sure Constantinople was probably unaware existed or even able to reach?
have went to Constantinople and asked premission to evangelize lands outside their borders, if Constantinople said no, then they should have refrained; but in all likelyhood Constantinople would have given their blessing, though maintained jurisdiction over her rightful lands. Of course, the Russians were more concerned with expanding their territory and influence than actually evangelizing anyone so this solution would not have met their true goals.
Should Moscow have done all the work and then just given authority over to the EP?
Authority should never have left the Oecumenical Throne, if Moscow wanted to send out priests out of concern for people's souls and not expanding political power this wouldn't have even been an issue.
Do you have any historical precedent to backup any cases of another Patriarchate missionizing a land (that may or may not have been outside her boundaries) and then outright given authority over to Constantinople?
The other patriarchates throughout history tended to know their places and didn't intrude on the lands of the other patriarchates. The one exception to this is the disputes beteween Old and New Rome...and we know where that lead. But with that said, I can think of one related issue. During part of the Ottoman rule Antioch was unable to govern the Metropolis of Aleppo, because of this the Oecumenical Patriarchate would oversee this Metropolis and the Metropolitan would sit on the Patriarchal Synod of Constantinople, this change remained in effect for hundreds of years. However, when the situation had normalized and the opportunity presented itself, the Oecumenical Throne would transfer this Metropolis back to Antioch, even against the express wishes of the sitting Metropolitan, as Constantinople desired to protect the ancient rights and territories of all the Sees.
What about the Church of Poland or the Church of the Czech lands? ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š AFAIK, they are both Autocephalous but yet I think I remember you saying that "it shouldn't have happened"...along with possibly Serbia, Albania, Bulgaria and the Church of Greece. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Well, it did and the EP has accepted them as such. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Please respond.
I have no problem with the Church of Serbia, they are amongst the few who went about originally obtaining autocephaly in an appropriate and Christian manner. As with the others, perhaps the autocephalies should some day be revoked, but not until the political situation better allows it. The autocephalies of the 19th century have dealt a near fatal blow to the Church, the worst such blow to Christianity since the fall of the City. They are the source of division, strife, and conflict. But, we should not create more problems than necessary by revoking the autocephalies at the wrong time, I agree that we should recognize them while expedient, always keeping in mind what is best for the Church, as our Patriarch does. Though as these lands are, by ancient canon and custom, under the authority of Constantinople, she can in the future, if she deems appropriate, revoke any autocephaly save those of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Cyprus...which can only be altered, like the posistion of Constantinople herself, by an Oecumenical Synod. (which is amongst the reasons that we have never actually deposed the Bishop of Rome or installed an 'orthodox' Bishop of Rome, we simply lack the authority to do so without an Oecumenical Synod, making the Current Pope the legitimate Bishop of Rome, even if out of Communion with the Rest of the Church)
BTW, EP are in comunion with all others ecumenists, like Romenia, Antioch;;;;
Yes, also known as the Christian Church. To be contrasted with the heterodox, which are those are not in Communion with the Oecumenical Throne.