That is all rather nonsensical. What is the ontology of "Apostolicity"? It cannot be transmitted by ordination, as the successor to a see is not ordained by his predecessor.
Interesting. According to Catholic (and OO) ecclesiology, along with fidelity to Sacred Tradition, ordination is a necessary
condition for the apostolicity of an hierarchy. This is a point of divergence with Protestant ecclesiology. I hope you can provide a more detailed explanation of your proposition.
It also appears you have a concept of ordination that is foreign to me, coming from both an Oriental Orthodox background and a Catholic understanding. Ordination is an action of the Church
, not of an individual person. It is the Church which transmits apostolicity, so I do not understand how you can say "it cannot be transmitted by ordination.
Indeed, if according to our most esteemed modern theologians, the teaching has been from the beginning that the very being of the Church is to be found in her holy mysteries, then for this concept of Apistolicity to have any true ecclesiastical significance, it must be attached to some sacrament. But if so, under what sign is "Apostolicity" passed on to the successor of an Apostolic see by his predecessor?
It is attached to the Sacrament of Holy Orders, which is transmitted by the Church. When bishops lay hands, they are not acting as individuals, but are representing the Church. If your statements truly reflect EO ecclesiology, then it's possible there is more divergence than I thought between the EOC, on the one hand, and the CC and OOC, on the other.
And then what are we to do with the Latins' own treatment of Patriarchates (or indeed, the existence of patriarchs outside of the Pentarchy)? What are we to do with the Patriarch of Lisbon (a see which like the See of Constantinople was not likely actually founded by an Apostle) or with the fact that the ancient Patriarchate of Aquileia was abolished in order to create the more modern Patriarch of Venice? Indeed, if your theory concerning "Apostolicity" being a part of the ontological constitution of the Church were true, these actions should have been impossible.
As far as the Latin patriarchates that are not one of the original Pentarchy, they were instituted with the express purpose of being merely honorific titles, and did not have the same jurisdictional prerogatives as that of the Patriarchs of the original Pentarchy. The Latin patriarchs only had the jurisdictional standing of Metropolitans (according to the ancient usage), but were still under the omophor of another head bishop in the Latin Church (i.e., the bishop of Rome).
It is similar (not exactly the same) as the standing of patriarchs in the Armenian Apostolic Church and (from what I have seen) in the Coptic Orthodox Church which are not of the originatl Pentarchy -- insofar as even the patriarchs who are not of ancient origin in those Churches recognize the Supreme Catholicos and the Coptic Orthodox Patriarch (respectively) as having a precedence, and will defer to them on important matters. (Granted: the Malankara Orthodox are a --unique--situation).
Which brings us back to the original question. In the EOC, are patriarchs who were not recognized or established by the universal authority of an Ecum Council considered equal in every way to the patriarchs of the original Pentarchy?