Seriously...LOL
You are NOT going to get a lot of love here with silly claims like this.
The RCC did not exist for centuries later than Peter.
The RCC could not even have nominally existed prior to 1054, despite the wild claims of the patriarch of Rome (one of the issues that led to the great schism).
Before this there was just the church, an imperfect one full of problems to be sure.
After 1054, yes, the church in Rome and what became the Orthodox church separated further to become very different entities.
t
There is no unbroken line of Apostolic succession from Peter through to the current Pope. Just a fiction, worthy of a Dan Brown novel!
And you know of course that the term "Pope" is derived from the word "Papa" and was coined by people in the eastern churches (those that would later become the Orthodox Church) as a term of endearment in the days when the Patriarch of Rome was actually instrumental in doing something useful, like settle doctrinal debates amongst various eastern congregations.
The current definition of "Pope" and titles of the Pope is another fiction without Biblical foundation.
(If there is no such thing as Apostolic succession, and there is not, then none of the current claims stack up.)
I think you need to understand that the version of history (and theology) taught by the RCC is really just a Dan Brown novel - a creative mix of just a little bit of truth here and there mixed in with a lot of imagination!