At that council, the Apostle whom you claim as your first pope did not preside: St. James the Brother of God did. The tome of the council records his judgement.
I claim him to be OUR first Pope, pre-schism. Re-read the Scriptures! James was Bishop of Jerusalem where the council was held. Yet Peter DECIDED the issue. (circumcision.) Read it carefully. AFTER Peter spoke and voiced his decision, James spoke, as presiding Bishop, and ACCEPTED the decision of Simon Peter. Now, you can build your cases in all directions from there, including, James made the final decision, but Scriptures is clear as to WHO decided the issue that was accepted by the Christian church. In fact, when James spoke, he cites Peter’s decision. Considering that he is the presiding Bishop, and brother of Our Lord, how clearer do you want your examples of Peter’s Papacy?
Sylvester did nothing at Nicea, Damasus was absent from Constantinople I, Pope Cyril of Alexandria led Ephesus (yes, I know the claim is that he only acted as Rome’s legate, but he had acted with his uncle Pope Theophilos in defiance of Rome in deposing another Archbishop of Constantinople, so he was quite capable on his own. And the Council didn’t seem to put him on a lower footing than Rome, proclaiming both “a new Paul” NOTE: not a new “Peter.” Leo was big at Chalcedon (after the fathers examined his tome and compared it to previous Councils), but the council seated Dioscorus over Leo’s express orders, and ignored his protest over canon 28. When Pope Vigilius refused to have anything to do with the Fifth Council, it went on without him. The Sixth anathematized Pope Honorius. The Pope had very little to do with the Seventh, while the semi-iconoclast council of Frankfurt was held in his patriarchate. Constantinople IV refused to be the rubber stamp that Nicholas wanted (he instructed it to merely ratify his decision), and Pope John approved the final form, which restored St. Photius.
I have read some of the material regarding the period and I don’t think a snippet on this forum is going to be sufficient to address just the bare facts of what actually occurred and then differentiate it from your inserted opinion and musings; so I won’t.
Suffice to say, there is plenty of material online for all to read and digest and check against other sources to sift through the various happenings throughout our history to see the errors of your view. It will be good study and learning also. The beauty of it is that NONE of it is hidden. It’s all there to be mulled over.
The Council of Jerusalem met in the name of the “Apostles (bishops), elders (priests) and brethren (Faithful).” No mention of Cephas, or a pope. Such was the governance of the Church. Such it is now. As our Lord said, “the gentiles have those who rule over them,” but he did not found a monarchy. James and John asked who would be first. Someone is asking the same question now.
There is no mention of Pope or
Collection of Bishops in the Scriptures, especially at the council in Jerusalem! Simply says, the elders of the Church, including the Apostles. For all we know from what is written, James could have been the only Bishop present. Yet they gathered over such a heated issue such as circumcision, since they were all Jews following the line of Moses!
Even as broadly as you want to make the governance of the Church, the Apostles do not demonstrate your view. Firstly, they sought council among themselves and elders of The Church and SOMEONE always makes the final decision to be collectively adopted in their teachings. Scriptures denotes Peter’s role repeatedly ON MAJOR issues among them. Circumcision being one, the replacement of Judas, the other, since there is no reason why the remaining 11 – Apostles could not have continued the ministry of Our Lord.
Finally, you seem to point out and highlight various arising issues during the Church’s history, and the steps taken by various Popes to address them as some kind of case against the Papacy and / or the Infallibility of The Church. You cannot be serious! Firstly, the fact that there are Popes throughout The Church’s history prior, during and since the schism, is historically clear. Secondly, The Holy Spirit guides The Church as promised by Christ, but it is full of sinners and in human hands, susceptible to sin like you and I.
Moreover, ‘The enemy’ spends most of his time and energy infiltrating Christ’s Church. Until Christ returns to be The Last Pope, The Church is GUIDED, not led, by God. That honour is to come, as Revelations tells us.
