Some of your refutations prove the opposite of what you intend to prove. For example, you say the early Church didn't recognize anything special about the See of Peter and yet you cite multiple persons who chafed under the authority. Clearly, someone thought there was authority invested in this See from very early in Church history.
Immediately after Peter's confession of faith, Jesus changes Peter's name to mean "rock" and declares He will build His Church upon this rock. We recognize the dual meaning here, where you only recognize one... Peter is the rock, as designated by Christ, and so is Peter's confession of faith. This faith is what set him apart.
Was Peter's role unique among the Apostles? You betcha. Who stepped out of the boat? Who made the confession of faith? Who denied Christ and was then raised up to serve his brothers? Who speaks for the Apostles when they are assembled together? The New Testament is almost the story of Jesus and Peter given his stardom!
Let's talk about authority. I would hope we can agree that there must be authority in the Church, right? Whether it's the Archbishop of Canterbury, Billy Graham, local pastors or a host of other persons... someone is constantly being elevated in the Protestant world to positions of authority. The problem with this authority, though, is that you only recognize the authority if you agree with it. What kind of authority is that? None. That is why there is no unity of faith in the Protestant world. Where disagreements exist, new churches are formed.
Take a look at the Epistles. Why were they written? If you read closely, they were written to confirm unity of faith. They either corrected what was flagging in a church or confirmed what was faithful. However, history should note that there is no place for the Epistles in a Church with no central authority.
Whose Church is this? Jesus said He would build His Church. It isn't Peter's Church or Apollus's... it is one, Holy and Apostolic. And Who is Christ? He is the fulfillment of all prophecy, the King Who will rule forever over the throne of David. We have a model in the Old Testament for administration of the matters of state. Come with me to Isaiah 22...
In the Kingdom, there is the King, of course. He is the only one with authority... unless he bestows it upon someone else. We see in Isaiah 22:21 that Eliakim is being raised to high office... and not just any office. He will be clothed in a royal robe, have the government in his hand and be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. The key of the House of David will be layed upon his shoulder that what he opens none shall shut and what he shuts none shall open. This language should sound familiar... it is the same language said to Peter after his confession. This is the language of naming the Prime Minister of the kingdom. It doesn't diminish Christ for Him to name those to serve Him. What you also see in Isaiah is the passing of the office from one to another. The authority goes with the office.
Protestants have resisted this interpretation for centuries now but there really is no other way to see it. Your worldview has brought disunity and division while the Catholic Church maintains Her unity of Faith. We disagree and discuss on matters of culture and contemporary living. We do not disagree on matters of settled Faith and Morals given by Christ in the Deposit of Faith (big "T" tradition). And we do submit to the ecclesial authority invested in the successors of the Apostles. On all matters? No. On matters within their authority as ministers of the Kingdom on Earth.
I was reading Isaiah 22 and there is a note in my Bible that links that reference of the “key” to the letter in Revelation 3 to the church in Philadelphia. Is this not Jesus who has the key? At the beginning of each letter is a description of Jesus.
I still think there are 7 churches just as there are 7 Spirits of God. The fight between Catholics and Protestants makes me feel like an Iraqi watching the Shiites and Sunnis.