A lot of these things could be said of our bishops (except the 'everything belongs to him' one).
The main thing that is different, is that each bishop is the head of a diocese. This diocese is itself an image of the whole Church:
The whole Church has for its head Christ;
The diocese has for its head the Bishop;
The whole Church is comprised of members of all nations;
The diocese is comprised of people from different origins;(Yes, I do see the irony.
And so on. These analogies can go on and on.
This is a "kat'holic" church, one in which the local church resembles iconically the whole Church; it is "according to the whole".
The problem with RC eclesiology is that the Pope is a "Steward-Head" of the *whole* church. A diocese that was "katta" this model would have a Bishop, who would stay in a monastery or in a cell, and an Archpriest who would, for all practical purposes, act on his name even if consulting him in each step.
As the Holy Pope Gregory, the Great said, the creation of a "universal bishop" automatically makes all the others just "auxilary bishops", less bishops than the universal one. The blasphemy is precisely the concept of having a bishop over the *whole* Church, a position that is exclusive of Christ, visible in icons and in the Eucharist and proclaimed through the right faith. That is not "according to the whole", but "over the whole". It breaks precisely the big model whereupon the concrete local churchs are supposed to be modelled after.