I looked into history (am a huge nerd) of the Roman empire and it appears to me that the claim of Rome as the legitimate successor of Peter back in the days were politically charged. Rome lost all power and authority as the capital of the Roman Empire once Emperor Constantine officially moved the Seat to Constantinople (initially named Nova Roma, later changed to Constantino-polis, or City of Constantine).

Rome lost all power and claims at that point, and the Barbarians only hastened the fall of that city.

Fast forward a few hundred years, the Barbarians have now converted to Christianity and the political class (mostly powerful merchant families including the Venetians) obviously must do something to regain "the glory of Rome" .

Enters Charlemagne and his genius conquest. The political class at Rome immediately seizes the opportunity and crown him the Holy Roman Emperor. Mind you, the real and legitimate Roman empire is still existing in the East at Constantinople uninterrupted since its official relocation as mentioned previously.

This ultimately led to rising tension over the next few hundred years which finally resulted in the sack of Constantinople by the Venetian scums and their BLM puppets disguised as crusaders.

You can make this exact same argument about the constitution and the courts. Why did the founding fathers wear wigs and fancy shoes? Why do court justices wear those fancy black robes? Why are there so many laws and rules and amendments? It’s because rules evolve over time as new situations arise. The Catholic Church has been around for 2000 years so of course it would be full of various stuff that has evolved. It’s weird if you to dismiss it instead of wonder why it came to be - it didn’t just spontaneously appear in one second.

I totally agree about the points that you make about the Catholic Church. I know a few faithful Catholics though. Good people. But yeah the church history and some of the practices. Protestantism has its own problems.