Do you define Pope as merely an honorific title for bishop, or is there more to it? I see Pope as a supreme leader of a church with absolute power and who has a line of direction revelation from God.
"Pope" is from the Latin "papa" or the Greek "pappas," meaning simply, "Father." The Patriarch of Rome had long been given this title. Because Old Rome was of preeminent importance, it was accorded the primary status among the various Churches. New Rome (Constantinople) came second. Then came Alexandria (in Egypt), Antioch (in Syria), and Jerusalem (although small, it was listed among the first because of its connection with the events of Christ's life and the early church). These were called the "Pentarchy." The Patriarch of Rome, as first among equals, was sometimes called upon to arbitrate disputes among the other self-governing Churches. But nowhere was he considered the leader of the Church. No doctrine could be dogmatized, as it were, without calling a council, of which seven ecumenical councils were called in the first eight centuries of the church. Many other councils, which were local in nature, were called before and since then, but they have only "persuasive" authority on the church, not "binding" authority as do the seven ecumenical councils.
In fact that is hardly surprising, for what do we see in the Book of Acts, chapter 15, but the very first of the church's councils, the Council of Jerusalem from ca. 50 AD. There, there were some who were telling the Gentile Christians that they had to be circumcised. The apostles and bishops called a council. Peter made a speech and the Apostle James, who at that time was Patriarch of Jerusalem (and would be until his death in AD 62 or 69), decreed that a message should be sent to the Gentiles explaining exactly what to do about this. After listening to the views of those around him (Peter's speech), considering the scripture and holy tradition (he references the Psalms), James gives his "judgment." (Acts 15:19). This is how a council works. James presided because the council was held in his see (Jerusalem). If the Catholic claims were right, Peter should have been presiding. Instead, he was simply a participant -- a wise one whose words were heeded -- but not the "chair of the meeting," so to speak. And certainly not viewed as infallible. Read also Galatians 2 where Paul seems to talk about this same council, but then seems to go on to rebuke Peter for later not following the dictates of this council when he returned to Antioch. Hardly how one apostle would treat an infallible pope, but more in keeping with the collegiality model of governance which we know in the Orthodox Church.
The bishop is said to govern his diocese from a chair. In Latin this word is "cathedra." Thus, a "cathedral" is a church wherein sits the bishop's chair. In English it is also translated "throne." (The Roman Catholic Church now says that the pope is infallible when he speaks "ex cathedra," or, "from his chair." This concept of the infallibility of one bishop is foreign to the Orthodox Church.)
We know from history that the Patriarchate of Rome was founded by the Apostle Peter. The Roman Catholic Church claims from this that its bishops inherited Christ's promise to Peter that "Thou art Peter, and on this rock I shall build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." From here comes their doctrine of papal infallibility. But they don't highlight that Peter was also the head of the Church of Antioch from circa 37 to circa 53, before he went to Rome, and that he consecrated St. Mark the Evangelist, who was the first bishop of Alexandria, from circa 43 to circa 68. Why did Peter's alleged infallibility descend only along the Roman line, and not to the bishops in the line of succession in Antioch or Alexandria? (We believe instead that the infallibility rests with the Church as a whole, that it would be preserved from error.)
The honor given to Rome was expressly accorded because of its status as the capital of the empire. This was stated on the record at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, where it was recorded, "the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city" and they further said that "actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome [Constantinople], justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her." You see from the decrees of these holy Councils that the primacy of Rome was not based on the fact that its bishop was the successor of Peter (although he certainly was), nor was any infallibility ascribed to the throne of Rome at that time. The Church of Rome was a powerful defender of the Orthodox faith; when many among the churches of the east, including Constantinople, embraced the iconoclastic heresy, it was Rome who called them back to their senses. They greatly honored one another but Rome was not considered infallible.
The early Church seemed to love to give the various sees honorific titles. The Patriarch of Rome was called "Pope." The Patriarch of Constantinople was accorded the title "Ecumenical Patriarch" in the 6th century. The Patriarch of Alexandria began to be called "Pope" in the 3rd century. After he successfully mediated a dispute between the Roman Emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople in the 11th century, the Patriarchate of Alexandria was even given the title "Judge of the Universe." But no one takes this to mean that he rules over the other churches or usurps the prerogatives of God in this respect!
