I think what is really at stake in the divide between Orthodox Church doctrine and Roman doctrine is how the differences effect us/people. What is good for us is to be understood as being more pleasing to God, and what is bad for us is not pleasing to God.
Rome has given several conflicting answers over the centuries, even contradicting her own dogmatic decrees. There is a facade of unity that is presented by Rome, because of a strong centralization around the concept of papal supremacy/infallibility. But the false unity of ecumenism (doctrinal pluralism) also offers a facade of unity, because of a strong centralization around the concept that unity is of greater value than true doctrine. Both "concepts" are false, however, and so must be rejected because the Truth is infinitely Good compared to either of these erroneous concepts. Many Protestants are united around a false concept of their own, called "sola Scriptura". It's the greatest thing that any of them share in common, and the one thing that hopelessly divides them though giving them a false sense of unity based upon their highest regard for the Bible.
Yet Orthodoxy itself is diverse, and honestly, what some describe as illusion is at least in the person of a single man. An imperfect one and some Popes have been terrible, but a single authority nonetheless. That is something one notices.
I'd rather that single man be the True God-Man, Christ, whose presence in His Church is by the Power of the Holy Spirit, and not said falsely to reside in an office held by any bishop. If God makes the Church infallible by His Holy Spirit, then the whole Church is infallible. If the office of one bishop is infallible, then the infallibility of the Church is forfeited.
Also, the Church is supposed to be diverse in various ways. That is why a universal bishop was never necessary.
Yet infallibility lies not in a man's error, sins, or personality but in the Church, overseen by one office. And headed by Christ.
In some ways diverse, but in Her responses to inquiries on Truth, She should be singular. Are there heretical Catholic leaders? Definitely. Have there been terrible Popes? Yes. But as Christ was the visible Head while on a Earth, a visible head after His Ascension makes sense, too.
From reading the Early Church Fathers it is clear that disagreements have always been present in the One True Church. Even though these were present it is obvious that unity was more important than right.
The Council of Jerusalem is the perfect example of how the Church was led, and shows the role of St Peter and the other leaders of the Church.
Yes and no. From an Orthodox point of view, this downplays the role of Peter. Yet from a Catholic point of view, this was simply the first Church council, whose head was Peter. Indeed, everyone had a voice, but a Catholic would respond that as it was Peter on whom the Church was built, Peter still had the seat of authority. Again, our perspectives on this would differ.
Oriental Orthodoxy in Egypt still uses the term. Yet Mark preached in Egypt, Sir. And we know it is Rome as Tradition describes this. If you look up a list of successors to the See of Antioch it will look different from list of successors to the See of Rome.
