OK the Romanians are wrong

I have been waiting to get the other side of the story in the ecclesial hissy fit between the Jerusalem Patriarchate and the Romanian Orthodox Church (see here) before drawing any conclusions.  That now appears to have been offered, and I have to say it does not look good for the Romanians (see Byzantine Texas for the details).  The whole thing is rather wordy and it wanders a lot.  But buried in the text is their argument in a single sentences.

“Due to pastoral-missionary reasons one can make derogation from the canons, because the canons are not dogmas, but pastoral rules.

This is of course absolutely true. It is called economy or oikonomia. Bishops can indeed suspend some church disciplines for a good reason... WITHIN THEIR JURISDICTION. 

Look I am no canon lawyer (do we even have such a thing?). But even I know you can't announce you are suspending the law in a place where you have no jurisdiction. No Romanian bishop has jurisdiction in the JP's territory, unless the JP's Synod says so, and clearly they haven't.  Neither can all of the Romanian bishops together suspend church law in a place where they have no jurisdiction.

That is the bottom line.  Everything else is just word games.  The Romanian Church is simply wrong here.  They need to man up and admit they overstepped their authority, apologize and ask politely for permission to establish a representation parish for the benefit of Romanian pilgrims.  That should solve the problem.