timdiggerm said:
If Peter was the first Pope, why did James preside over the Council of Jerusalem?
Here's an article that might explain it better and in more detail than I can:
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/was-james-the-real-leader-of-the-early-church
James was the local Bishop and Jerusalem was pretty much the headquarters of the Church at the time, so James would have had a good deal of authority there. There is a theory that Acts 15 describes two separate events, one regarding circumcision, which was the Council of Jerusalem (led by Peter), and another regarding dietary laws which was a local decree and not Church wide like the Council. This is evidenced by Acts 21:15-25 in which Paul once again goes out to Jerusalem and they address the dietary and Mosaic laws a seeming second time which would be odd if they had already brought it up in the council of Jerusalem. If that were the case, then there is no problem as Peter would have presided over the Council of Jerusalem. If this is not the case however, then consider that he was the first to speak, which is indicative of his higher position. He also calls directly on the authority of God, as is the role of the Pope. The Pope is a mediator between God and his Church and is not himself the authority behind the Church's teachings, so by giving his judgement, James was not necessarily contradicting Peter's authority. Peter also spoke authoritatively, stating, "we believe that we are saved by through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they", (Acts 15:11) rather than giving his "judgement" on the matter. This may have just been a character trait of his, but it may also indicate that he had enough authority just to state that it "was" a certain way or "should be" a certain way rather than giving his judgement or opinion on the matter. James also only reinforced what Peter said. It is also notable that Peter met with no opposition to his statements (Acts 15:12a: The whole assembly fell silent...), even though there were many present who did not agree with that position initially, so that also indicates that he had authority.
Check out the link if my explanation doesn't quite cut it and hopefully it will help. You may want to skip straight to the explanation, which begins about two thirds of the way down at "Petrine Primacy in Acts."