Small "c" catholics, for had the account been that of Rome, Peter would have been the one giving the final conclusive judgment as to what should be done, and Peter's testimony as to how the Gentiles were saved would have included baptism and the Lord's supper, and the record of the ecumenical council would have mentioned Mass being celebrated.
Moreover, Acts would have mentioned priests officiating at the LS in dispensing the body and blood of Christ, rather than simply "breaking of bread," and in the only account of an apostle actually calling an ecumenical council, the pastors would have been charged with doing so, versus feeding the flock by preaching as Paul did, and teaches that the word of God is what builds them up and nourishes souls. (Acts 20:28-32; 1Tim. 4:6).
The utter absence of RC distinctives, from Peter reigning supreme over the church as the first of a line of infallible popes, to her separate class of believers distinctively called "priests" (and normatively celibate) and thereby the central supreme sacrament of consuming the real flesh and blood of Christ, to praying to created beings in Heaven, etc., is proof that Catholicism did not change the Bible, as Islam claims.
If she had, then the forgeries would not have made much use of by Rome.