Well, that's okay. Most people aren't well educated in history, especially history of Christianity, etc. People are all over the board on when/how Christianity started, what was involved, etc. I've heard all sorts of wild stories, including yours (no offense). If only we had had the tools we have today to film and record everything, and store things digitally. There would be no doubt.
I think it's okay not to know, but one has to be careful not to overstate one's case as if it's proven fact, if one doesn't really know. Stating it as a theory is just fine, but should be backed up by some sort of facts, yes? There must be reasons why we believe what we believe.
I would propose that if your premise is true, that Catholics "took over" the Church founded by Christ, then that would have had to have happened very, very early on. St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was ordained and appointed as bishop of Antioch by St. Peter, the Apostle, himself, referred to the Church as the Catholic Church. (
https://www.orderofstignatius.org/files/Letters/Ignatius_to_Smyrnaeans.pdf) So, if your premise is true, you would have to claim that St. Ignatious was one of the ones taking over Christ's Church, yes? One step after an Apostle. And then, we would have to ask the question, did he belong to some group separate from the Church founded by Christ, and did St. Peter know this, or was part of this? Would that imply that St. Peter was Catholic, too, and participated in the "takeover?"