Which NT church is revealed in Acts onward, which is interpretive of the gospels, and which did not teach perpetual ensured magisterial infallibility, which is unseen and unnecessary in the life of the church;
Nor did it have a separate class of believers distinctively called "saints" or distinctively titled "priests," offering up "real" flesh and blood as a sacrifice for sin, which is to be literally consumed in order to obtain spiritual life.
Nor is it otherwise Scripturally manifest in the life of the church as being the sacrament around which all else revolves, and the "source and summit of the Christian faith," "in which our redemption is accomplished."
Nor is the NT church manifest as looking to Peter as the first of a line of exalted infallible popes reigning over the church from Rome (which even Catholic scholarship provides testimony against), and praying to created beings in Heaven, and expecting to endure postmortem purifying torments in order to become good enough to enter Heaven, and saying prayers to obtain early release from it, and requiring clerical celibacy as the norm, among other things.
No wonder Catholics rely on amorphous "oral tradition," for under the premise of magisterial infallibility all sorts of fables can be chanelled into binding doctrine, even claiming to "remember" an extraScriptural event which lacks even early historical testimony, and was opposed by RC scholars themselves the world over as being apostolic tradition.
I see no Protestant denomination that mirrors the Scriptures as Catholicism does; they all claim to be “Christian”, yet they ALL have embraced divorce, “gay marriage”, female clergy, etc. - though some adherents claim their specific sect of that branch hasn’t done so.