Even among Western theologians, there is an opinion that bishops receive jurisdiction directly from Christ rather than through the Pope ... even if it's the less common opinion ... not that appointment by the pope (at least tacitly for the Eastern Rites) is not a requirement. So, the thinking is similar to that about the Pope. Church/Cardinals/electors select or elect the Pope, but Christ actually confers the authority or jurisdiction. In the case of bishops, the Pope appoints the Bishop to his diocese, etc., but then Christ confers the jurisdiction directly to him.
As for jurisdiction being distinct from the Orders themselves, for long periods of time the two were never separated. It wasn't until the consecration of so-called "Chorbishops" or, basically, auxiliary bishops, that you had bishops without jurisdiction in the Church. In most of the Byzantine-family Eastern Rites, Chorbishops were eventually banned. Really, one of the biggest reasons to have Chorbishops would be to assist with Confirmations, and in the East priests can confer the Sacrament of Confirmation. Maronites, Melkites, and others continue to have Chorbishops, who are generally permitted to confer Minor Orders but forbidden (by law) to ordain priests (though ordinations to the priesthood by them would be valid though illicit), but you don't see them on the Byzantine Eastern Rites.
Even the etymology of "episcopus", meaning "overseer", implies the bishop being in charge of something, generally of priests and a diocese. Some argue that there's a certain amount of authority inherent in the Holy Order itself even for bishops who lack appointment to a diocese or actual jurisdiction.
Topic: The Sacramentality of Episcopal Consecration (Read 1616 times)