Are there any good books that show that papal infallibility and papal supremacy were not part of the early Christian faith, not even in seed form? I'd like to find something that isn't overly biased towards the Orthodox position, but also makes a "final nail in the coffin" argument against the two doctrines. Any recommendations? I'll take several, I'd like to read more than one source.
Brian Tierney, Origins of Papal Infallibility, 1150-1350: A Study on the Concepts of Infallibility, Sovereignty and Tradition in the Middle Ages
("There is no convincing evidence that papal infallibility formed any part of the theological or canonical tradition of the church before the thirteenth century; the doctrine was invented in the first place by a few dissident Franciscans because it suited their convenience to invent it; eventually, but only after much initial reluctance, it was accepted by the papacy because it suited the convenience of the popes to accept it" (p. 281).
As far as I know no major academic historian sees anything like papal infallibility or Magisterium in the first millennium; you won't have to look very hard to find the mainstream academic consensus. This is also widely admitted by serious Roman Catholic historians if maligned by amateur traditionalist apologists as "dissent."
For example Roman Catholic Cardinal Yyves Congar famously opined there was not even a *germ* of what developed into papal infallibility until the 1200s. This question was one of the central areas of Congar's historical research; for years he was forbidden by the Vatican to write or speak on related topics (his loyalty to his vow of obedience was impressive; he was elevated to Cardinal 6 months prior to his death). Cf. also Bernhard Hasler, (Roman Catholic priest) How the Pope Became Infallible: Pius IX and the Politics of Persuasion
Any notion that supremacy of one bishop over all others existed in the early centuries of Christianity is pure historical anachronism and/or obscurantism from an academic point of view, questionable prooftexting of amateur traditionalist apologists notwithstanding. The type of structure of office which would allow such a function did not even exist in the early Church before the Nicean age:
Gradual Historical Progression from Bishops over Elders to Diocesan Bishops, to Metropolitan Bishops, to Patriarchs (381 AD):
1. Early NT Period: presbyters were at first semantically identical to bishops (ἐπίσκοποι/episkopoi; compare Acts 20:17 and vs. 28; Titus 1:5 and vs. 7; 1 Pet 5:1 and vs. 2 (cf. Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2005, p. 211); compare Jewish synagogues governed by a council of elders (Greek: πρεσβύτεροι presbyteroi).
2. 49 AD: Jerusalem Council (Acts 15); leadership of James at Jerusalem; 62 AD: martyrdom of James; martyrdom of Paul (c. 67 AD); 70 AD: destruction of Jerusalem by then general (later emperor) Titus. Book of Romans -no apparent community order with episkopos.
3. Later NT Period: "Early Catholicism," viz. single ruling bishops (Pastoral Epistles/AD 65 and afterward; Timothy in Ephesus, and Titus in Crete, are told by Paul to ordain presbyters/bishops and e.g. "exhort with all authority" -Titus 2:15). Contra radical local/independent model of congregationalism.
4. Early writings including 1 Clement (c. 90 AD) and the Didache (Teaching of the Twelve, variously dated 60-100AD) also speak of two *local* offices (viz. (1) presbyter/bishop and (2) deacon). Ignatius c. 110 AD, defender of the local bishop as an exhortation to the local community of Corinth did not address a bishop of all or Rome any more than Paul did. Only later do we find the local presbyter -as a semantically distinct category from and under the bishop- as a local *prest* (not a mis-spelling) serving locally alongside a deacon or deacons, however it is important to realize that but the actual structure and function described by such terminology existed primitively before the semantic form of how that was described evolved. In Ignatius's letters of circa 107 AD "overseer/bishop" is first found being used of leading presbyter of a city-church. However, since there is indisputable evidence city churches possessed leading presbyters well before Ignatius's letters of 107 AD (e.g. Jerusalem: James; Ephesus: Timothy; Crete: Titus can be viewed as ex-officio presidents and who presided over their fellow presbyters) the new element is *not* structure, but semantics (i.e. there were those presiding over fellow presbyters, with a distinctive function, but they were not yet distinguished by the terminology bishop *versus* presbyter. While some scholars have wished to portray Ignatius as "creating" the monarchical episcopate in his epistles dated c. 107 AD very clearly his epistles address *already existing* monarchical bishops in in each Asian city-church he addressed on the geographical route to his martyrdom. All but one are addressed by name (Smyrnia: Polycarp, disciple of John the apostle and presbyters and deacons (Ig Smyrn 2); Ephesus: Onesimus (Ig Eph 1); Magnesia: Damas, presbyters and deacons (Ig Mag 1); Trallia: Polybius (Ig Trall 1); Philadelphia: unnamed bishop, deacons, and presbyters (Ig Phil). One cannot help but wonder, as Cleenwerk observes, exactly who appointed all those monarchical bishops, especially in places such as Ephesus, Smyrna, and Philadelphia, over which the Apostle John himself had so recently wielded authority (over the very same still-living Christians who Ignatius addresses in his epistles). The most likely and sensible conclusion is that St. John himself appointed these bishops to be the leading shepherds of the Asian city-churches in his absence.
5. 142 AD: One Diocesan Bishop (proper) over other Bishops. The first single bishop presiding over the diocese of Rome was Pius I (142 - 155). That later official lists of early "popes" (an alternate term for bishop not originally exclusive to the bishop of Rome) actually presided only over a council of elders is the unanimous verdict of all major academic historians (including Roman Catholic historians).
6. 325 AD Metropolitan Bishop over Diocesan Bishops. Metropolitan bishops are first mentioned in the canons of the Council of Nicea. Bishops in the great cities tended to have more education and prestige; country bishops (called chorespicopi) were described as lacking education and more vulnerable to heretical ideas. The colloquial Greek pappa (from which our rendering "pope" derived) was from the beginning of the third century used for Eastern metropolitans, diocesan bishops, regular bishops, abbots, and eventually parish priest. The title of "pope" early on was used by several Metropolitan Bishops at once. Later in the West, after Old Rome had been conquered and ceased to be bilingual, the Greek pappa became more obscure to the Latin speakers in the West and fell into disuse outside of the immediate environment of Old Rome in the West. The term then became increasingly reserved became increasingly reserved for the bishop of Rome until this was made an official demand by Gregory VII in the later eleventh century. The term papacy (papatus) -designed to sharply demarcate the office of the Roman bishop from all bishops also originated at the end of the eleventh century.
As St. Justin explained, ***levels of bishops*** are in Orthodoxy not a matter of something considered apostolic tradition or divine ordination but of practicality (this is one area where Orthodoxy has never agreed with historically much later Roman Catholic claims about the pope's authority over other bishops). If leading presbyters in certain cities whom we would identify as bishops proper are seen historically in the later NT and early post apostolic period there is nothing whatsoever corresponding to a supreme jurisdiction of any bishop over other bishops before the offices of bishops over other other bishops even evolved (first diocesan over other bishops, then metropolitan over diocesan bishops, and finally patriarchal over metropolitan).
The notion of an early single supreme bishop over all other earthly bishops during the early period of the apostolic fathers is an historical anachronism pure and simple, all amateur apologetic prooftexting to the contrary notwithstanding.
 "...the Orthodox Church, in its nature and its dogmatically unchanging constitution is episcopal and centred in the bishops. For the bishop and the faithful gathered around him are the expression and manifestation of the Church as the Body of Christ, especially in the Holy Liturgy: the Church is Apostolic and Catholic only by virtue of its bishops, insofar as they are the heads of true ecclesiastical units, the dioceses. At the same time, the other, historically later and variable forms of church organisation of the Orthodox Church: the metropolias, archdioceses, patriarchates, pentarchias, autocephalies, autonomies, etc., however many there may be or shall be, cannot have and do not have a determining and decisive significance in the conciliar system of the Orthodox Church..." (May 7, 1977 Letter of St. Justin to Bishop Jovan
). above quoted text comes from another thread: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,43289.msg721590.html#msg721590 -S1389
This differentiates the Orthodox from the late Roman Catholic dogma of a divinely instituted supreme papacy/papal over all other earthly bishops. It very smoothly fits contemporary mainstream academic consensus re. church history on the Orthodox side.