I had to stop reading through your original post because it seemed to be a collection from inflammatory pamphlets of the time, at least some of it.
There was mention of relics including the true cross; I'm looking at a crucifix in my old bedroom here typing this that contains a sliver - on the back in abbreviated Latin is the claim to be that. It's not of great importance to me whether it's true or not - God isn't not in every sliver of wood anyway. But that reference to the calculation mentioning that if they were all added up it would be shiploads of lumber - that's not actually true. If you're interested in the reference, I could try and hunt it down - I came across it randomly, not actually looking to know that. That inaccuracy makes me doubt, or at least wonder about, much of the rest without more references to the original works.
Another thing is that there is a difference between the temporal and spiritual authority of the Catholic Church. What's called the Donation of Constantine is what gave the Roman Catholic Church the temporal power of the Roman Empire, but that ended fairly recently with the Vatican being the extent of what was left from wars in Italy ending the Papal States. It was my understanding that Jesus gave to Peter his authority as first Pope, and the succession has continued from there. I'm sure there are people who will correct me if I'm wrong.
A question I have for you, as well as others reading this, is that, if the Reformation was entirely as stated above, now that things are no longer like that, will you be rejoining the Catholic Church, perhaps by joining the Anglicans reintegrating into it now? Another question would be, what would the Catholic Church need to change for you to be a member of it? Like I said, I'm not the best Catholic myself, but the article posted seems so focused on criticizing the Catholic Church rather than extolling where your own church succeeds that I'm curious to know. A last question would be, if it seemed like passages in the New Testament were in opposition to the Old Testament, which would you consider more authoritative?
Does it not bother you in the least that it may not be true but someone is claiming it?
There are plenty of honest, decent Protestant posters on FR by which you can learn just like there are decent well informed Orthodox and Catholic posters. Since you are new you will learn who they are, and reading what they write is quite informative.
These aren't those guys. These guys could work for He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named comic book publications. That's their level of bigotry.
The NT church had no pope, no priests, no masses, no sacrifices...
Greg Dues has written Catholic Customs & Traditions, a popular guide (New London: Twenty Third Publications, 2007). On page 166 he states, "Priesthood as we know it in the Catholic church was unheard of during the first generation of Christianity, because at that time priesthood was still associated with animal sacrifices in both the Jewish and pagan religions."
"A clearly defined local leadership in the form of elders, or presbyteroi, became still more important when the original apostles and disciples of Jesus died. The chief elder in each community was often called the episkopos (Greek, 'overseer'). In English this came to be translated as 'bishop' (Latin, episcopus). Ordinarily he presided over the community's Eucharistic assembly."
"When the Eucharist came to be regarded as a sacrifice, the role of the bishop took on a priestly dimension. By the third century bishops were considered priests. Presbyters or elders sometimes substituted for the bishop at the Eucharist. By the end of the third century people all over were using the title 'priest' (hierus in Greek and sacerdos in Latin) for whoever presided at the Eucharist."