At least as old as the Quartodeciman controversy. But don’t pin this on Rome. It would be more correct to say that there was always this tension everywhere.
Were the emperors in Constantinople any better? The Melkites had a Syriac Rite originally—but they gradually lost it as it became more and more Byzantinized. And were the Reformers any better? Before Henry VIII there were local English uses in York, Hereford, and Bangor—these sees were all forced to adopt the Book of Common Prayer.
And let’s not forget that within Rome’s patriarchal jurisdiction, the Roman rite existed side by side (and still does) with the Ambrosian and Mozarabic rites. Nor that the Council of Trent was content to let any traditional rite continue as long as it was over 200 years old.
Apparently the religious business attracts people who run about screaming, "We've got to get bloody organized, then we've got to get those guys over there organized our way!" Then, there's the fact that eventually every religious movement involves real estate and facilities maintenance. E.G., St. Francis of Assisi, who gave everything he owned to the poor, but the order founded in his name owned about 1/3 of Italy before he died!
Me? I vote for the Shakers. It seems their services were a bit like line-dancing to hymns. Now that, that would liven things up at the College of Cardinals!