It seemed to me the "ontology" to which he was referring was the idea of apostolicity being passed on by ordination. The fact is, it is passed on by ordination (i.e., the laying on hands), which is the sacramental manner by which apostolicity is perpetuated.
In contrast, I got the sense that what he was speaking of apostolicity in the literal and immediate sense, not of the episcopate in general, but of the establishment of a handful of sees by the apostles themselves. What I thought he might be asking was, for example, "Since there are no more apostles, obviously, and Moscow was not established by an apostle, how is it this see can now claim any sort of primacy?"
I hope he explains further what he means if that was not really the issue.
I do too, and hope that someone will speak to your post immediately above his as well, either correcting or verifying it. Curious about both.
