Regarding "The Break up of the Patriarchy of the West!
Whilst the proposal may have some influence within the Roman Communion world wide, towards Orthodoxy and other non Roman Catholics, i.e. Anglican Catholics and Old Catholics, it means very little. The difference being more Uniates,rather than individual "conversions" to Rome. The problem with the Papacy and the Patriarchy is that the former has no historical legitimacy while the latter is the gift of the Ecumenical Councils which simply makes the Pope,chairman of the Latin board,as it were. If there is to be a serious attempt at unity surely the most divisive item in the Catholic Church as a whole is the Papacy?
I focused more on the patriarchy because I thought that was the main thrust of this thread. This is not to deny that the papacy is a serious issue in ecumenical discourse. In fact, I believe that ultimately it is the crucial one. Your appeal to "historical legitimacy" begs the question, for the issue concerns the source and criterion of legitimacy itself. Your putative solution (conciliarism) is not really a solution, for of itself it provides no criterion for determining which councils are legitimate. Any issue, in any domain of discourse whatsoever, is "divisive"; that is precisely why it is an issue. But in the unique case of the papacy it concerns the very means of resolving the division itself. It is a metaphysical principle that the many are resolved into one, and that the principle of unity must itself be one. That is equally true in the case of ecclesiastical unity.
Returning to the original theme of papacy and patriarchy, I would simply point out that the cause of ecumenism is well served by distinguishing between essentials and unessentials, especially where these may have been confused. In that sense, I would still suggest that a development in the direction of multiple patriarchies or jurisdiction would be a step in the right direction.