This error is nearly as old as Papism itself. In fact, neo-papal patriarchalism is nothing more than an attempt to take aspects of papal ecclesiology and fit them into an Orthodox ecclesiological system. The first to hold to neo-papal patriarchalism was the Patriarch of Constantinople, over a thousand years ago. Since that time, right believing Orthodox have fought against this theological error whenever it has arisen anew. And it has arisen again in our days.
The basic idea that this error affirms is this: one must be in communion with a certain see (e.g., Constantinople) in order to be Orthodox. However, sometimes neo-papal patriarchalism is utilized in a bit broader and more general form, so that the basic idea might be stated thus: one must be in communion with a certain bishop or group of bishops in order to be Orthodox. In this broader form, there are a few variations. For example, some say that one must be in communion with one of the "Patriarchates," while others say that one must be in communion with "a canonical Orthodox Church".
However one tries to phrase things, though, the basic premise of neo-papal patriarchalism remains the same: one supposedly derives their Orthodoxy based on who they are in communion with. This is the opposite of Orthodox belief however, for in the Church of Christ one does not become (or continue to be) Othodox because of who they are in communion with, but rather, one decides who they are in communion with according to their Orthodoxy. Put simply, communion with a particular bishop or group of bishops does not make you Orthodox. And a temporary lack of communion does not mean that you are without question not Orthodox (the lives of Sts. John Chrysostom, Gregory the Theologian, Basil the Great, and others demonstrate this well)
From a theological viewpoint, most of the same arguments that are used to defend Orthodox belief against papal supremacy can also be used against neo-papal patriarchalism. Both attempt to make a bishop (or particular group of bishops) into an Orthodox-bestowing or validity-bestowing or grace-bestowing instrument, through which God apparently brings people into the Church or cuts them off from the Church. The reason that our Lord, the Apostles, and the Fathers did not permit such a system is because they knew that error and sin would creep into each and every group, and that there would never be a full-proof, error-proof see, bishop or group of bishops. There is no one person or group that everyone in all times could look to when wanting to know where the Church was. Not one local church has escaped from error and heresy.
The relevant thing for neo-papal patriarchalism, however, is not that all have fallen into heresy at one point or another, but that we do not know who will fall next, or in what way, or at what time. This uncertainty means that one cannot simply declare a bishop or group of bishops (or see or group of local churches) to be the guarantors of Orthodoxy. The only guarantee that you are Orthodox is having Christ as your head, and that guarantee is much harder to demonstrate than simply being able to rattle off who you are in communion with.*
Neo-papal patriachalism also tends to negate the canonical witness, since it disregards the clear canonical and patristic commands to break with those in error (even before being formally condemned). If even a Church considered to be above all others in it's orthodoxy falls into heresy, or if even the most beloved, kind and pious bishop falls in error: then a break in communion is necessary. Neo-papal patriarchalism would confuse the matter greatly if this bishop or see were said to be one that you had to be in communion with to be Orthodox.
This is not only worrisome ranting or theorizing or planning: this is a situation that is occuring at this moment in Orthodoxy. People today--even monks who are more pious than I could ever hope to be--are falling into this trap, and accepting compromise with error and sin and heresy, because they fear being outside the Church if they break with certain bishops or sees. Souls are suffering and dying because of this innovation is being accepted and promoted as a supposedly Orthodox ecclesiology. It's no wonder that certain churches do not consider papal supremacy a huge stumbling block for union between Rome and Orthodoxy: the ecclesiology of some Orthodox is not very much different than Rome's ecclesiology.
Rome was Orthodox when she fell: in other words, Orthodox Churches do fall. Large Orthodox Churches do fall. Churches that have an ancient and strongly orthodox past do fall. So why do we resist believing that it has happened nowadays? This is just speculation, and isn't universally applicable, but I think one of the main problems is that we are having a typical human psychological reaction: we think "oh, yes, that can happen, but not to me, and not now". Heresy does spring up, but we don't expect it to happen to us, and we don't expect it to happen now. We will freely admit that Churches sometimes embrace heresy, but we would smash someone's teeth in (verbally anyway) if they said that our Church was the one that had fallen away from Orthodoxy.
This is an especially crucial issue that we must all face. The issue would be made all that much more vital if we are indeed in the end times. Fr. Georges Florovsky said (in The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky; Volume 1: Bible, Church, and Tradition):
The world-wide extension or the universality of the Church is only an outward sign, one that is not absolutely necessary. The Church was catholic even when Christian communities were but solitary rare islands in a sea of unbelief and paganism. And the Church will remain catholic even unto the end of time when the mystery of the "falling away" will be revealed, when the Church once more will dwindle to a "small flock."
Fr. Georges here articulates the mind of the Fathers. If I were to say these same words I would be caricatured as a sectarian who was only trying to justify his own actions (for talking of a "small flock" and whatnot). But there it is from Fr. Georges, who most everyone in world Orthodox respects. And even if it isn't the end time, the first part of the quote from Fr. Georges nonetheless remains true. Catholicity and Orthodoxy are not dependent on size or union with the (supposedly) right (or "canonical") Churches.
* As an aside, someone might offer a seemingly logical idea at this point: "If we know that X is Orthodox, then that means that everyone who is Orthodox should be in communion with X: therefore, those who are not in communion with X are not Orthodox". This type of reasoning, while certainly better than neo-papal patriarchalism, still does not allow for all the complexities and, to be honest, mirkiness, that characterizes human and divine-human relationships. Using this logic, either St. Basil or St. Athanasius would have been outside the Church since they disagreed as to who was the Orthodox bishop of Antioch. There are other examples, but the point is that things are not always so simple as finding one group who are Orthodox and then proclaiming that whoever is in communion with them are Orthodox and whoever is not in communion with them are not Orthodox.
