Isn't the Eastern Orthodox view of ecclesiology more consistent with the first-millennium Church?

The Orthodox hold that the first seven councils are authoritative and infallible, but ask yourself who decides that the Second Council of Nicaea or the Council of Constantinople is to be accepted rather than rejected. It has to be the pope, and that was in fact the ecclesiology of the whole first millennium; they believed the same things you and I believe. It was only after the split in 1054, when the union efforts finally fell apart in the 1400s, that they said the pope is not the final authority, just a big man visible above the others, one among equals whom they might obey sometimes but who is not the final judge. But then they make themselves the final judge of whether the pope is the final judge, which is ironic and solves nothing; it only moves the problem back one step onto their own doorstep, which is why the Orthodox churches disagree among themselves to this day. The very reason Christ gave us a pope is that a group with a supposed consensus will inevitably run into disagreement. For the historical case that the pope had authority over all the Eastern churches, see our book on the subject, which goes century by century for the first eight hundred years.