Also Lucian Hodoboc, if each Apostolic See were represented by their patriarchs, I would still want Peter's Successor given primacy in some real sense. I don't believe that his two pastorates are of equal gifts, I believe that his Roman pastorate is the supreme one, and my only real evidence that supports that belief, is that that is how the Church treated Peter's Roman pastorate for centuries, up until around the time that Islam began, or shortly thereafter. But more importantly than that is that Paul died in Rome too, so that's the city where his Apostolic See is located, along with Peter's Roman pastorate, which to me just gives Apostolic weight to the papacy's interpretation of my idea of Petrine supremacy; wrt pastorates (authentic Church offices), and not individuals.
I also can't find where the 'filioque' conflicts with Scripture, so I don't have a problem with the clause being Apostolically authenticated as Christian, when Eastern (now Orthdox) bishops say that 'filioque' is not a part of their Apostolic oral tradition, but the Pope said that it is part of his Apostolic oral tradition, and so if you believe the Pope's Apostolic oral tradition might be of marginally higher quality and purity than the oral traditions of all the other Apostles, then this is justified.
And the fact remains that all this is above my ken, if all the Church's valid bishops, both Catholic and Orthodox, can't figure out how to reunite, then what am I, as a non-Catholic layman, supposed to do? In the absence of clear instruction, I believe I am supposed to do my best, and that's what I'm doing, all the time.