I just wanted to add something about Roman Papacy. The Papal Papacy is not supported in either Scripture or Church History. What holds the Roman Idea of Papacy is there doctrines of Saint Peter being both the Leader of the Apostle and the Rock to which to Christ' Church was built. But neither can support the Roman position. To Rome, "Peter=Rome", a bad equation I might add.
The idea that Saint Peter is the leader of the Apostles is clear through Sacred Scriptures and the Holy Fathers of the Church. No argument here. But he wasn't "vicar of Christ" nor was he infallible nor was he "supreme leader" (or a dictator). He had a primacy of honor and authority.
Now lets say for the stake of the argument, that Saint Peter was the Rock that the Church was build, whats difference does it make in discussing Papal Papacy? Saint Peter did not start the Roman Church first, rather he started the Church of Antioch and Alexandria. Each Bishop can claim that he is the successor of Saint Peter. Rome isn't special in this regard. Why isn't the Bishop of Antioch the "Church Leader"? Petrine Authority doesn't prove anything. Why Roman Catholics need to mention Saint Peter as being the Church leader and the rock to which the Church was build every time they talk about "Roman Papacy" is beyond my understanding. The Early Church Fathers "consensus" teachings is far from Rome idea. All bishops, are in fact, a successor to Saint Peter and the Apostles.
Did Rome had any special primacy in the Early Church? Yes (He was first among equals), but the Church never regarded the Bishop of Rome as there "leader" nor acknowledge that he was infallible when He spoke about Faith and Morals. Rome's authority was very limited. The Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (Canon III) states very clearly that Constantinople have prerogative of honor after the Bishop of Rome. These honors were given to them, they never "own" it (as a God-given right). The Bishop of Rome receive honor first because Rome was the capital, until Constantinople became the New Rome. Rome spoke agaisnt this canon but it didn't make a difference. Rome never accepted canon 28 of Chalcedon(451) (until 1215), but the canon still remained regardless of what Rome thought. This proves that Rome wasn't special, nor was she "Church Leader". The fact that the Early Church held "Ecumenical Councils" proves, again, that the Church never regarded Rome as "Church Leader" or else they would have run to Rome and allow the Pope to settle the matter. No the Early Church was "This is was good for the Holy Spirit, and thus this is good for us". On a side note, the Pope wasn't invited nor was He part of one of the (or two, kinda forgot this) Ecumenical Council.
The Council of Quinisext (AD 692) (the canons is said to be part of the sixth council, to which the 5th and 6th councils never did any "Canons" for the Church, thus this Council was called to correct that. The 7th Ecumenical council ascribed the Trullan canons to the Sixth Ecumenical Council) spoke out agaisnt many of Rome's practices that were wrong.
The Holy Orthodox Church Leader is Christ.
Jesus Christ, Son of God, Have Mercy Upon Me a Sinner.