But Fr. Ambose, I think you know that the Catholic Church teaches that Christ is the head of the Chruch. The Pope is only the Head of the Church as the Bishop is the head of a Diocese in your religion.
Well, Orthodox have a problem with that as well. The Pope is not really a bishop in practice, because all bishops are ontologically co-equal; rather he has another higher echelon unto himself, and so he is above all bishops and has personal jurisdiction in all places, whether they are part of his patriarchate or not.
Whereas the Orthodox would be fine with the Pope having that power if it were limited to the Patriarchate of the West
—as all Patriarchs have universal jurisdiction over their patriarchate—but Catholics teach (as I understand it) the Pope has universal jurisdiction over the entire Church. We don't believe he ever had that power before the schism. He was used as the point of reference for Orthodox doctrine on different occasions, yes, but he never had personal jurisdiction per se
over the entire Church. He was never the universal bishop.
I suppose it's a difference between a constitutional monarchy like the UK and an absolute monarchy. An absolute monarch, while he may be benevolent, still has the right to go into any village and tell people how to run things. Meanwhile, Queen Elizabeth cannot really tell anyone what to do. Even the Queen's Speech, which sets the government's agenda, is written by the government and she just reads it.
That is akin to how we see the Pope's role. He is the outward face of unity, and in a certain sense is in control of it all, but only in the sense that he is the personification of the Church's conciliar consensus. But the Church does not need
the Pope in an administrative sense. The Church does not need
the Pope for a consensus to have force of law. Things are capable of running without him.