No, Catholic distinctives are nowhere in Acts and Romans and Revelations, much less clear as a bell, and insisting one can see them there would be an example of one seeing what they want but can only wish were there. That you appeal to the uninspired writings of post-apostolic men testifies to this.
"but more importantly, the Church Fathers for 1500 years saw them in there as well."
"More importantly?!" Seriously, the uninspired writings of men - which actually attest to the progressive accretion of traditions of men - are more important than only the only wholly inspired-of-God and substantive record of what the NT church believed?
"Of course, that's the whole reason you said "wholly inspired" record, right? You were attempting to entirely exclude all the Christian literature that didn't agree with your idea of the NT."
No, not exclude, but as subject to testing by that which is wholly God- inspired, as was even the veracity of even the very apostles who, unlike your writings and popes and councils, could speak and write as wholly God-inspired.
" Can't do that. There are enormously precious and valuable historical records of what the early Church believed, from the Didache and Clement all the way through to Constantine and beyond. Valuable and precious, anyway, to those who aren't afraid of them, and who don't hold to the heresies they flatly condemn. "
Actually rather than being afraid of them they both can reprove Rome - thus "she judges them more than she is judged by them" (Catholic Encyclopedia: “Tradition and Living Magisterium”) - as well as provide testimony of the accretion of her errors.
BULL. Attested where, and by whom? Quote them.