There is a inherent lack of faith in this comment. After Pentecost and before the rise of an institutional church a couple centuries later Christians being led by the Holy Spirit managed to share The Gospel with unbelievers and Christianity grew at a phenomenal rate. In this decentralized environment there were disputes over a variety of issues, but the errors were nowhere near as devastating to Christianity as the errors introduced as orthodoxy by the rise of an institutional church using the power of the state to enforce it's will.
For me I'll happily stick with the decentralized biblical model and trust in the end any doctrines not clearly established in a literal first understanding of Scripture will be revealed to be the heresies they are.
It once again relies on a typical Roman recourse of a strawman, that of having the Bible without the Church, as holding Scripture as supreme and sufficient does not mean that, but means that the only source of Truth which is wholly inspired of God is the supreme authority for obedience and Truth, is abundantly evidence in Scripture.
Under the alternative, that of the church being supreme as possessing perpetual assured infallibility, which premise most cults effectively operate out of, you also have sects, and the most critical heresies, and with the problem of errant personal interpretation becoming corporate, among other things even engaging in a common practice that has zero examples in Scripture, and attributes uniquely Divine power to created beings.
Meanwhile, the unity that Rome has is very limited and largely on paper, while what she does and effects constitutes the evidence of what she really believes, which is partly shown by by treating even prosodomite, proabortion liberal pols as members in life and in death.
And by her fruit being overall liberal, while those who hold most strongly to Scripture being supreme as literally being the word of God and accurate in all it teaches are by far the most conservative and unified believers in basic beliefs.
And Catholics who share that view of Scripture, which are few, as likewise conservative, while under the model of the church being supreme, when the leadership, which interprets itself, becomes liberal so do its followers, resulting in division, the very thing that RC attack evangelicals for but which results in their unity that transcends external divisions.
Moreover, the things Catholics under sola ecclesia can disagree on is also extensive , even as to what cannot be disagreed on, being infallible, as well the meaning of both infallible and fallible (the majority) teachings. Thus under both models you have both a limited degree of unity as well as division, nor does organizational unity constitute perpetual validity, and thus the question is which is Scriptural:
Unity under the premise of an autocratic infallible magisterium, in which Scripture history and tradition can only assuredly mean what she may say, or upon the basis of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, by which both men and writings of God become established as being so, as in Scripture.
Even though unity under this is more difficult, as it can only be realized relative to the degree of Scriptural substantiation, which the apostles manifested, (2Cor. 6:4-10; 12:12 in contrast to autocratic self declaration, thus cults have the most unity, "pope" Jim Jones" being the most extreme example.