Did the original churches and congregations formed by the many disciples of Jesus not count?

The early Church was just a united entity, which eventually had splits to orthodox and Catholic, and from Catholic the protestants. So Catholics and orthodox trace back to the beginning basically, with protestants seeming to break off from Catholics more clearly.

Peter being the first pope

I think most are with this claim? It's just the orthodox believe the title of pope to be more honorary?

Vatican is tied in with the Cabal

I think Catholics, orthodox, and protestants have all been affected by this kind of thing. So I don't see this as specifically something that stands out against Catholicism.

Catholics have a more centralized institution, so some of us think they tried to elect a non-Catholic "pope" to take it over.

Orthodox have multiple patriarchs, I've seen one kind of compromising "agreement" I wouldn't expect either side to agree with:

https://infogalactic.com/info/Balamand_declaration

Protestants seem to lack hierarchy a bit, so there's all kinds of freedoms for "megachurches" or leftwing "churches" to be created and make protestantism look "non-Christian".

encouraged to read scripture for themselves until the 1940's

I'm not aware of what you're referring to, although the Scripture was originally passed by oral tradition and literacy wasn't universal so it took some time for there to be a codified Scripture and for the common person to be able to read it, and there were concerns the Scripture would be misread or mistranslated so reading Scripture may not have been encouraged for the common person.

idea of having a Pope and them acting as the Vicar of Christ is already pure blasphemy alone

Typically even secular entities like companies or governments have a singular leader, whether it is a CEO or the POTUS. So it would make sense for the Church to have a singular leader, with Christ as the founder. Such entities also have hierarchies, like with government having local, state, and federal levels of hierarchy.

Purgatory, the practice of confession to a priest, even the practice of priesthood itself. All lacking biblical roots.

To the contrary, I find protestantism's practice to be ahistorical. Both Catholic and orthodox observe to some extent what is mentioned, of having clergy and confession to a priest. A sinner is however encouraged to pray acts of contrition and to obtain perfect contrition for sin before God outside the confessional (but with the intent of confessing when possible).

mandatory act of forbidding marriage

For a millennium, I think people were allowed to marry and then become clergy. St. Paul is the example in the Bible that remained celibate for his whole life and wrote that such a state is good because it allows a person to focus entirely on God rather than have to attend to worldly issues. It's simple to follow this line of reasoning. The person who is married is typically working a secular job to provide for a family. The unmarried priest might be able to instead devote more time to prayer that would be otherwise devoted to work, or to devote time to religious works that might not generate necessary income for a family. So there is a practical and Biblical basis for this practice, as well as there being other benefits. Celibates are also able to perhaps observe more rigorous penitential fasts.

abuse in Catholicism

There are a few things to be said here, the first of which is that I don't think the numbers are statistically significant compared to other groups, who also have a certain percentage of abusers. Another point is that abusers decided to become clergy to make Christianity look bad. Some of us do think the would-be hierarchy has been taken over though and that the "shuffling around" of "clergy", rather than to send them to the government for secular punishment, has been another attack on Christianity.

hoarding historical artifacts

Perhaps wasn't a good practice, I don't know about this one, but probably we're in agreement this isn't an issue necessary to resolve for people to be good Christians.

book burning

Would a comparable situation today be that of certain books that promote witchcraft or transgenderism to children? Such books were judged to be of no value back then, since they promoted things harmful to souls, and so were destroyed. Do you think they should have archived the books instead? They didn't want to promote the false ideas, which they thought might harm souls.

praying to the many different Saints

https://infogalactic.com/info/Intercession_of_saints

deliberately done to make the transition from the Roman polytheistic religion to Christianity more palatable

There was this concept of "baptizing" pagan practices, or removing sufficiently objectionable content and of doing something similar but in a "Christian" way. For example consider this about the feast of "Candlemas":

Pope Innocent XII believed Candlemas was created as an alternative to Roman Paganism, as stated in a sermon on the subject:

Why do we in this feast carry candles? Because the Gentiles dedicated the month of February to the infernal gods, and as at the beginning of it Pluto stole Proserpine, and her mother Ceres sought her in the night with lighted candles, so they, at the beginning of the month, walked about the city with lighted candles. Because the holy fathers could not extirpate the custom, they ordained that Christians should carry about candles in honor of the Blessed Virgin; and thus what was done before in the honor of Ceres is now done in honor of the Blessed Virgin.[18]

https://infogalactic.com/info/Presentation_of_Jesus_at_the_Temple

This has been done multiple times with a bunch of things, so it's not that they were trying to trick Christians in to observing pagan practices, but to transform pagan practices into Christian ones.

I guess feel free to continue to ask questions about Catholicism if there's some continued questions you have. (Crusades? Inquisition? Indulgences?)