I'm not much of a christianity scholar, if at all.
But you base your opinion on the Pope directing the doctrine from very early times, a sort of boss for the church. I base mine on the Patriachs all being of equal status, though with the Pope's words carrying more weight.

But if we look at the very earliest times of christian practices, the bishop wasn't a ruler really, but rather the most knowledgeable of the local christians. They one they would turn to when they got confused or weren't in agreement, an arbiter you might say. When the bishops met they would discuss things equally. Later the Patriarchs were made as the church expanded too much for the bishops to all meet, or even just locally. But the position was in basic concepts the same.

The Pope gained his first real 'power' when Charlemagne had him crown him. Befroe that the Pope could yell and scream but seemingly even the western bishops cared little for him. That is also noted in the amount, and contents, of correspondance going to and from Rome. Prior to the coronation it was mainly personal and secular stuff, afterwards kings sent their request for blessings of their rule and so forth. Obviously he had by then been recognized as an authority on religious matters.
You can also see this in the dispute between the Pope and the HRE Emperors over who would dictate the doctrine of the church in Germany. It came relatively late, and is kind of odd if you think about it.
If the Pope had always been God's representative on Earth, then why would the HRE Emperors suddenly begin to balk when he tried to meddle in their religious affairs? Clearly the opinion on the Pope's position was not very certain even in the Western world.