Simple yes or no....do you accept the Greek Orthodox position on the pope?
No, I do not subscribe to the Greek Orthodox position on the Pope.
Now we must discuss what it means to be a Catholic Church. As a Catholic website with many Orthodox and some Protestant staff, this is a question we intend to address accurately and charitably. The Catholic Church recognizes the Orthodox Churches (including non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches) as Apostolic, "true particular Churches" with valid sacraments. This status as "true particular Church" is derived from the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church. Thus, while the Catholic Church believes that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, Orthodox sacraments are valid. The Catholic Church allows Orthodox Christians to commune in certain circumstances, and the late Pope John Paul II spoke of the Eastern Church as one of the two "lungs" of Christendom. The Orthodox tend to assert that they can say where the Church is, but not where it is not, and the Catholic position seems very similar. Thus both Catholic and Orthodox recognize that the borders of the Church are somewhat of a mystery, although both Catholics and Orthodox believe each is the true and visible Church. As a Catholic I affirm that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, but that this somehow includes the Orthodox in a very real way.
One may ask, where does the bishop of Rome, the Pope, fit into all of this? Catholics believe that the Pope (and his Roman See) is the successor of St. Peter, and thus possesses a spiritual and jurisdictional Primacy that no other bishop holds. Eastern Orthodox Churches (whom the Catholic Church recognizes as "Sister Churches," with qualifications) will perhaps grant a kind of "first among equals" primacy to the bishop of Rome, but not a jurisdictional, or really even a spiritual, primacy. The office of the papacy has been abused at times, as has the power of other bishops in other regions, which has led many to distrust the papacy. For example, Martin Luther and other Protestants strongly criticized the papacy. However, we mustn't judge an office by its worst examples. As a website working toward ecumenical relationships between East and West, perhaps we need to emphasize that the primacy of the bishop of Rome is ultimately a primacy of servanthood and humility. Pope John Paul II in 1995 called for Catholic theologians to examine the primacy of Rome in light of ecumenical relationships and servanthood (Ut Unum Sint 95). However, despite this noble call which unfortunately few have heeded, the Pope, the successor to Saint Peter, is the visible head of the Church, who when speaking on matters of faith and morals on behalf of the Church is infallible, and this presents a problem in light of East-West relations. However, as I have said, Catholics are willing to grant the Orthodox Churches the role of "Sister Churches" and are willing to commune Orthodox Christians. This shows that the Catholic Church recognizes that despite the unwillingness of many Eastern Churches to recognize the Primacy of Rome, they still possess qualities that make them part of the Church. Perhaps this, and the call to reflect on the papacy in light of an improved relationship with the East, are good starting points to future unity.
I interpret the question as evidence of default on the topic of the thread, the sufficiency of scripture, since the thread has now become about which catholic tradition is correct.