But then.
You probably misunderstand the history and role of scripture, even what tradition is (you use the phrase catholic traditions which is a big giveaway`, the role of the pope and his acceptance in primacy of honour by the very councils that defined your new testament , creed, and opposed many heresies.
One of the things I found most fascinating in my journey from protestant, evangelical then back to Rome, was that all reformationists had to presume a true church that they claim apostasized and so they wish to return there. And the amusing thing is the range of dates they choose for that apostasy! The ill informed pick constantines reign, but if they researched it in such as "the life of Anthony, anasthasius" whose ministry spanned both ends of constantine or later works like the "apostasy that never was" they discover that no doctrine actually changed. Sp none of the apostasy dates make any sense at all!
The only conclusion you can come to by studying early documents is that...
The early church was liturgical, sacramental, had a priesthood and bishopric, appointed by and as successors to the apostles, who alone were empowered to perform eucharist of the real presence, which really was considered the body and blood of our lord, which was why Romans thought they were cannibals in hushed rituals. The only mechanism of faith transfer to ordinary christians was tradition, other than a few letters between the apostolic successors , so faith was handed down by those appointed. And that none then believed then in sola scriptura, quite apart from anything else, the new testament did not exist, and the embryo of it was not compiled . The first canons (eg Marcions,) were actually declared heretical, the canon we now have was centuries in the making.
And that all the way to the new testament accepted by one of many councils, the bishop of rome was deemed successor of Peter and as such had primacy of honour, even the eastern now orthodox said so. Augustine lists all of them from the very first! Between the eastern and western churches, that was the whole of christendom, other than some declared heretics like gnostics!
They all believed in much the same things.
The myriad of other doctrines did not start till the reformation empowered all to make up their own doctrine, and many did just that!
Nothing much has actually changed in catholic church.
For sure an oak tree does not look like an acorn, and as the church grew its structure had to change. It looked different But it was the true church. Nothing changed. It was people. People do evil things. And bishops cardinals and not a few popes, certainly had fingers in the till. People are human. People are evil. But our lord promised us that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. And it has not.
RCC is like a supertanker, that takes for ever to do anything. Which is both its strength and its weakness. But it is still there after 2000 years.
If you wish to read a take on the papacy read "upon this rock" by Steve Ray. You may well find your arguments against it crumble in the light of truth. It is for example very important WHERE Jesus rock statement to Peter took place, to understand the context, of the (pagan) rock he was discriminating against in making Peter his rock.
You can ignore what those verses say if want, the choice is yours.
It's precisely because I've searched the Scriptures and done careful and continuous research into the Catholic Church traditons/the Cathechism/the Papacy etc., that I will never be Catholic.
God bless.
