annalex-"What is your source for that?"
My understanding is that wmfights (and I) believe that the church was ruled by bishops who, on occasion, would come together to resolve disputes. While there appears to be some order, no one voted for leadership. Contrary to what is often portray, the first Council in Jerusalem as recorded in Acts was not lead by Peter but by James. I believe you'll find the Orthodox don't cotton to a "one infallible" Pope.
"While there appears to be some order, no one voted for leadership."
I think you'll find that some bishop always presided at these early synods and its likely they were elected. Eventually, the bishops of the major cities came to regularly preside at local or provincial synods and later the Patriarchs of the major Sees of the Empire. But, at least from an Orthodox point of view, this primacy, while invested with such authority as necessary to make the primacy real and effective, was still a primacy among equals. We still operate this way.
That is not debatable. Papacy as we know it today developed as heresies began to develop. It is true that the prominence of St. Peter clear in the New Testament does not directly translate to the papacy as we have it today. But I am very happy we have it because of the heretics like you. In the West we need a strong papacy. Less so in the East.
The original dispute with WmFights was whether the early Church was hierarchical, and both historical and scriptural evidence for that is plentiful.