There is no historical evidence that the Bible was the complete encyclopedia of the faith, before archeaology was as advanced as it is today it was possible to run around saying that reformers practiced ‘real Christianity’ however the more we uncover the more we find Christians practicing identically to how the Orthodox, Oriental Churches, and in most places Catholics do today.
That, my friend, is not relevant to the issue at hand. We are not arguing over the form or practice of worship. If you want to go that route, you'll find that many Protestant churches still have a very high liturgical service. It's not all rock concerts and motivational lectures (THANK GOD!).
More the point, an interesting change occurred relatively recently that I have yet to see any historical or archaeological evidence for in the early church: the mass is being done in English. But the Roman Catholic Church (or at least, some of it) decided that was OK.
So, to bring it all together, you're pointing to differences in practice between the early church and some current Protestant churches as proof against their claims of being true churches of Christ, but are dismissing differences in practice between the early church and the present day Roman Catholic churches as valid because of their claim of being true churches of Christ.
It doesn't work that way, friend :)