No I;m not..
The Roman Catholic church started when Constantine(Emperor of Rome) declared all of Rome including all its citizens would become "Christians".. and the only "religion" recognized would "Christian"..
Forced three things(actually more than 3 things) but I'll limit it three..
1) forced conversion of pagans...
2) need for a "priesthood", to control the rabble..
3) The first "christian" theocracy..
Totally eliminating the need for what made you a "Christian" before that..
VOLA!.. the Roman Catholic church.. The roman bishops were striving for accendacy(credibility) before that but the bishops in other places ignored them..
It happened.. totally researchable.. and answers why the Roman Catholic cult is rife with pagan celebrations and rites.. Cause they are NEEDED...
I'm personally a member of a cult with only one member..
Heck, I can start a cult too.. its easy.. its just God and Me..
And I'm not jealous of "his" relationships with others either..
After all "he's" God, what would he even NEED with a religion anyway..
Only psuedo-Gods even NEED religion.. to them its manditory for ANY crebility.
Thats why religions are invented, for Psuedo-Gods.. The real God don't need one...
the real God don't even HAVE a name (EXodus Ch 3)...
-OR- NEED ONE...
anyone can start a church, but getting your own emporer to back it up, now that takes some doin!
Read Eusebius. He traces the "Bishops" of Rome. Eusebius was a Bishop of a city near the Turkey/Syria border, near the coast. He also traces the Bishops of Alexander for a while and the Bishops of Jerusalem for a while be stops following them as well. The only consistent lineage he follows throughout is ROME. He points out a biological relationship to the Bishops of Jerusalem but notes the shift to non-jewish prelates and a period when the Bishop of Jerusalem was not even in Jerusalem but continued to use the name. It is clear the focus of this Eastern Bishop was the Bishop in Rome. Jerusalem was much closer and the Emperor was in Constantinople also closer than Rome but it is to Rome this Bishop looked. If all Bishops were equal in the early Church why does this not show in this early Church writer?
Don't take this in the wrong spirit (I am not trying to be combative)... but is that your opinion, or do you presume to know the workings of the mind and will of God?
What I mean is this: the underlying assumption in what you are saying is that no "religion" can come from God, that God would never desire a system of worship and belief. But what is a religion? If you define a religion as a set of manmade rules trying to tamper with that which God reveals to us, then I suppose you are correct. No orthodox Catholic, however, would accept Catholicism as falling into that definition of religion. We assert that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ, and that all of her doctrines find their source in its founder, and that many of the beliefs you write off as "paganizations" existed prior to 313 AD, as can be observed in the writings of the early Fathers of the Church. The Roman Catholic Church is not a mere cult, but rather the bulwark of faith outside of which there is no salvation.
As St. Ignatius of Antioch said in his Letter to the Philadelphias circa 110 AD, "Be not deceived, my brethren: If anyone follows a maker of schism, he does not inherit the kingdom of God; if anyone walks in strange doctrine, he has no part in the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood; one altar, as there is one bishop, with the presbytery [plural for presbyter, which literally means "elder", from which we draw the word "priest"] and my fellow servants, the deacons."