I’m not sure it’s quite what you’re asking for, but Olivier Clement’s
You Are Peter
is an excellent discussion of the papacy from an Orthodox point of view. It’s actually more popular among Catholics than among Orthodox, I think–most Orthodox find it far too ecumenical. But it does articulate what many Orthodox (and many others, including many Catholics) find troubling about the “second-millennium” developments in the Papacy.
Thanks for this excellent suggestion, Edwin. I found this old book review:
orthodoxytoday.org/articles4/CarlsonPrimacy.php
The Church of the first millennium recognized the Holy Spirit’s leading through three primary means: ecumenical councils, the see of Rome, and the witness of the faithful (even one lone witness to truth, such as in the case of St. Maximus the Confessor
In the period of the Ecumenical Councils, East and West found a way to work together despite differing assumptions and language. The West understood papal tomes as “the faith of the Church as the apostle Peter first proclaimed it” and therefore as the dominant, decisive word in council deliberations. The other bishops, in Rome’s view, had the secondary, though important, role of guaranteeing the presence of the Holy Spirit by their ratification of Rome’s direction.