That’s a poor misread of history. Peter was the first Pope and we have an unbroken line of apostolic succession. If only you’d do some basic research. The Catholic Church does no more than confirm for us here on earth a person who is already a saint in heaven through one of the most rigorous processes for such a confirmation. This is why it takes tens of years.
The Catholic version of history.
“That’s a poor misread of history. Peter was the first Pope and we have an unbroken line of apostolic succession. If only you’d do some basic research. The Catholic Church does no more than confirm for us here on earth a person who is already a saint in heaven through one of the most rigorous processes for such a confirmation. This is why it takes tens of years.”
Pete never even went to Rome, and if you’d “do some basic research” you’d find that the succession doesn’t exist - it’s been shattered by such breaks as dual Popes, a suspected female pope, and frequent revisions of the lists of early Bishops of Rome by the Catholic hierarchy.
In fact, letting one pope die before ever selecting a replacement invalidates the concept of “succession”. Every pope’s death is a complete break from the “line”. If there were a genuine succession, the living Pope would lay hands on his choice for a successor.
Finally, for the first two centuries the Bishop of Rome had no supremacy over the Bishops of other cities. The pre-Catholic Christians got along fine without a “pope.