This is the problem with so many fundamentalist Protestants, they take things out of context.
If you'd have read the first line of that paragraph that states, For, according to the Blessed Dionysius, it is a law of the divinity that the lowest things reach the highest place by intermediaries. Then, according to the order of the universe, all things are not led back to order equally and immediately, but the lowest by the intermediary, and the inferior by the superior, you'd recognize, therefore, that there was no issue with any Greek Orthodox from that statement.
Unfortunately, like Protestants, you cannot attain salvation as long as you are not subject to the Pope.
Kolo can explain this far better than I, but Greek Orthodox ecclesiology is radically different than Protestant ecclesiology on that subject. While you utterly reject any authority for the Bishop of Rome, there are any number of Ecumenical Councils, accepted by both east and west, that affirm that authority. The difference between East and West is the use of subsidiarity in the application of ecclesiastical authority, not whether those lines exist.
Canon 6 of the first Council of Nicea:
The ancient customs of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis shall be maintained, according to which the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these places since a similar custom exists with reference to the bishop of Rome. Similarly in Antioch and the other provinces the prerogatives of the churches are to be preserved. In general the following principle is evident: if anyone is made bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, this great synod determines that such a one shall not be a bishop. If however two or three by reason of personal rivalry dissent from the common vote of all, provided it is reasonable and in accordance with the church's canon, the vote of the majority shall prevail.
Constantinople 1, Canon 3:
Because it is new Rome, the bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy the privileges of honour after the bishop of Rome.
Nicea 2, Canon 17:
The first, holy and universal synod of Nicaea orders that the ancient custom should be preserved throughout Egypt and the provinces subject to her, so that the bishop of Alexandria has them all under his authority; it declares, "Because such a custom has prevailed in the city of Rome". Therefore this great and holy synod decrees that in old and new Rome and the sees of Antioch and Jerusalem the ancient custom must be preserved in all things, so that their prelates should have authority over all the metropolitans whom they promote or confirm in the episcopal dignity, either through the imposition of hands or the bestowal of the pallium; that is to say, the authority to summon them, in case of necessity, to a meeting in synod or even to reprimand and correct them, when a report about some wrongdoing leads to an accusation.
So the question of primacy is not in question. The ability of the Bishop of Rome to direct actions within another patriarchate is the question. But the Orthodox dispute with the Latin Church is utterly different than the Protestant dispute with the Catholic Church.
Kolo, did I capture the above accurately from your POV?
You did just fine! I particularly like this:
"The difference between East and West is the use of subsidiarity in the application of ecclesiastical authority, not whether those lines exist."