fwiw, I would love you to stay around.
In all honesty though, I'm disappointed in a sense. While I of course defer to the workings of the Holy Spirit in your life, as a convert to Orthodoxy myself, I don't understand where you are coming from at all.
I'll ramble. Please note that I value very much the wisdom and insight of many of the Roman Catholics who post here (Papist and others), but alas the purpose of an Orthodox/RC forum is to discuss these issues...
To "have the scales lifted from your eyes" and embrace a church whose "supremacy", authority and leadership, in effect, hangs on the single claim of a single Bishop in a single town (so much so that to "make up" for that fact and incompleteness, the claim/authority by that one Bishop had to be reinforced and insisted upon by its own to the point where the church now proclaims infallibility) rings as hollow with me as it apparently does true to you (for now at least). The historical evolution of the Roman see as juxtaposed with the other apostolic sees reveals, when viewed simply, a start with relative equivalency, then primacy and honor for Rome, then supremacy for Rome, then monarchy, then infallibility seems so obvious and so motivated by pride. Even if you disagree with my quick and dirty rundown, that the road to infallibility happened over time and was not the case ab initio is without question.
What in St. Peter's example reveals the inevitability of the elevation of a leader/bishop in status and authority over its brethren over time? What in Christ's words indicate this was intended, other than a tenuous reading of a single verse spoken outside the presence of the other apostles and prior to St. Peter's ordination at Pentecost?
Of all the components of Christ's saying he was going to build his church on the rock and give the keys to Peter, the RC selects the location of St. Peter's death as THE singularly important factor? It isn't the person of St. Peter himself, because, well, St. Peter did lots of things besides establish the church in Rome (w/ St. Paul) and be martyred. Christ never set foot anywhere near Rome, never indicated Rome mattered at all, the incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection, etc. (along with the institution of all sacraments) took place thousands of miles from Rome. St. Peter spent very little of his life in Rome, and founded churches in places other than Rome. Even assuming Christ's words to St. Peter should be interpreted as to the person of St. Peter being "the rock" (as opposed to the actual words and faith which prompted Christ's statement), there is quite a leap to extend that to mean "and the successive bishops in the town wherever you last establish a church and die shall hereby be deemed to inherit these keys".
On such critical matters, I fail to see how Christ would be ambiguous and simply assume that centuries of strife and schism would be sufficient to work things out. Indeed, when it was time to ordain the apostles and charge them with their mission and pour the spirit upon them, He did so UNAMBIGUOUSLY to the entire group together- suggesting the unity and relative equivalency of their mission and status from the first moment of the Church.
I'm trained as a lawyer, so I tend to analyze things in accordance with that mode of reasoning. It has always struck me as an overlooked factor that at the time the "rock/keys" comment was made by Christ, there was no Church yet per se, and there was no see of Rome or Bishop of Rome, and even if we accept that Christ's response applied to St. Peter personally, St. Peter still was not acting in his capacity as Bishop of Rome (or a Bishop at all) when he "accepted" those keys? What to make of this? That St. Peter put the keys in his pocket so to speak, holding onto them until such time as the Church could be instituted, the Roman see founded and his own martyrdom at which time they burst forth with meaning and "vest" subsequent Pontiffs w/ supremacy as if Christ had uttered the "rock/keys" statement to them personally?
Viewed differently, pn a very basic level (and historical and theological arguments aside), for the Bishop of Rome to claim superiority and infallibility seems so patently and intuitively counter to the spirit and example of humility. How can a church or bishop, acting in humility, deign to innovate a settled upon creed or proclaim its own supremacy/superiority?
What "benefit" have those doctrines brought anyone- even Rome? What if Rome had just left the Creed alone and NOT insisted upon its own greatness. What would've happened? That a certain small segment of intellectuals who thought they knew trinitarian theology better would be dismayed? That certain Spanish sees would be irritated temporarily b/c they preferred the filioque?
On the other hand, the "fruit" of these decisions are clear- Christendon is divided, Roman Catholics are forced to be apologists for this stuff, and the "ongoing revelation of the Holy Spirit through the magisterium of the throne of the Bishop of Rome" continues to provide us with additional doctrine, dogma and practices which are, in many cases, a reflection of the personality, predilections and agendas (even w/ good intentions) of the Popes who espouse them. And yes, I'm quite aware that the infallibility mechanism has been used VERY infrequently officially, but that's not really the point, is it?
Who knows where that will lead the Roman Church over the next 300 years?
I apologize for my scattered thoughts and ideas, and I know that people (like St. Iranaeus) in the quote excerpted by MS can wax eloquently and convincingly on the majesty of Rome, but the fact remains that the Roman position requires significant leaps in logic, historical and theological license, and a belief that Christ would be ambiguous about such a crucial matter and let everyone duke it out in His earthly absence (indeed THE crucial matter of ecclessiology of the last 1000 years). OR, you could believe that the 5 patriarchs have the same theological authority, that Acts contemplates a concilliar method of dispute resolution, that Rome is to be honored but is not infallible when acting alone, and that they "got it right" regarding the Creed at Nicaea. Seems like an easy choice, and would've avoided immeasurable grief and heartache to accept the latter.