Also, since the Orthodox still pretty well agree with Roman primacy if Rome isn't schismatic, without agreeing with Roman superiority, the crux is the claims of superiority, not of the pope having a unique ultimate authority alone. That quibble is only important because the path to unity and resolving the conflict would involve the Orthodox and the Catholics both admitting that the pope didn't actually mean to claim a superiority he didn't have; and in my (perhaps scholastic) understanding of the pope's pronouncements, he didn't.

No such thing as Rome's primacy. There never was such a thing in the first millennium. It was always "first among equals" honorary title and didn't pertain to ecclesiological superiority so that's a word concept fallacy. You should know that the Vatican has admit the Early Church didn't operate under Rome's primacy but had a synodal autocephalous structure in the Chieti document. Papalism is a later development like much of RC dogma.