Perhaps, but would you argue with the premise that the historical development of the Church was:
universal church => local churches => grouping of local churches into regional patriarchates
This is not to question the importance or place of the local churches in relation to the universal church, just the historical order of their formation.
In addition to the question of historical formation, would you object to the statement that the local churches flow ontologically from the universal church?
" Perhaps, but would you argue with the premise that the historical development of the Church was: universal church => local churches => grouping of local churches into regional patriarchates"
From a purely historical perspective, no, I would not disagree, but then again, I don't think that Pentecost was some "construction" of +Luke as +Kasper apparently does.
"In addition to the question of historical formation, would you object to the statement that the local churches flow ontologically from the universal church?"
Not at all. But as I have said before, the fullness of The Church is found in an individual diocese.
The problem of the local groupings under patriarchs is that with schisms it has gcome to be that numerous patriarchs and parishes in the same area under different patriarchs are the norm. In the event of communion between Rome and any of the Orthodox I cannot see uniting the Orthodox parishes under the existing Catholic Bishop nor vice versa. Even the Orthodox struggle with this in East Europe, and in America. There's AT LEAST 3 patriarchs for New York (OCA, ROCOR, and MP), and especially a few decades ago churches were actively going back and forth between them, and properties were being disputed. I don't see geography as being much of a way going forward to group churches, and that's a problem seeing as the only way it was ever canonicaly done was geographically.