HD, the Orthodox do not even entertain the idea that the Pope can be infallible, on doctrinal or ecclesial level. No Patriarch was ever considered infallible by the East.
The Orthodox do believe that the Church as a whole, as the Body of Christ, is protected from error and therefore inerrant (free of error) and infallible (incapable of error) and cannot be brought down by the gates of hell/Hades. [cf Mat 16:18]
Thus, when the Church meets in an ecumenical council, its proclamations are considered infallible because it is believed that the Holy Spirit guides the Church as a whole. Thus, when the pope proclaims dogma (not necessarily declares dogma!), it is infallible because it cannot be a dogma if it is not declared as dogma by an ecumenical council.
Vatican I changed all this, giving the Pope the ability to establish dogma without an ecumenical council, thereby acting as if he were the whole Church, or, more correctly, that his ministry encompasses the entire church (universal jurisdiction); in other words, the Pope is the Church and we subsist in the Church through and in him!
Needless to say, Vatican I did more to make any reunion with the Orthodox next to impossible than any other act of the Latin Church did in the past 1,000 years.
So, the issue of papacy is both doctrinal and ecclesial. the vast majority of Orthodox theologians do not consider Mat 16:18 a biblical establishment of papacy; ecumenical councils (such as those of Ephesus and Cahlcedon, 4th and 5th century) clearly state that papal primacy i given by the bishops because of the Imperial dignity of Old Rome.
Yes, I would agree. Trust me kosta, while I may disagree with the theological views of the Orthodox, I do think they tend to be consistent in the way they have viewed things. Catholics have far greater theological problems simply because they tinker too much with their doctrine.