[kosta50]

While I would not characterize the popes in the first millennium as rulers, they were, even in the East, more that just the elder patriarch

But that means a lot in the East! He is like the father to the younger brothers. He is ultimately responsible for all of them.

The councils themselves are filled with examples of the popes being addressed as the shepherd of the entire church

In a conciliar manner, yes. In fact he is the medium of conciliar unity.

Protestations by the Orthodox to the contrary will not change the historical facts

The Orthodox will treat him as they have before the Schism. A Patriarch has a lot of pull. The eldest patriarch of course has a lot more pull. But the Orthodox will not agree for the pope to pronounce dogma by bypassing the Synod. The General Synod has to infallibly approve. and he infallibly proclaims it.

[Petrosius]

But that means a lot in the East! He is like the father to the younger brothers. He is ultimately responsible for all of them.

Perhaps this could be spelled out more completely. To the Western ear Primus inter pares gives the impression of nothing more than precedence in protocol, somewhat like how the Archbishop of Baltimore would be treated among the American bishops. It also seems to imply the denial of a specific Petrine office distinct from the office of patriarch.