Where was your church before the Reformation?

One question Catholic apologists like to ask evangelicals is "Where was your church before the Reformation?"

i) Now that's a loaded question because Catholics operate with a different paradigm of the church than evangelicals. As I've remarked several occasions, Catholics operate with a priest-sacrament paradigm that requires historical continuity (i.e. apostolic succession) whereas evangelicals (or low-church Protestants) operate with a Word-Spirit paradigm that doesn't require historical continuity. 

ii) In addition, there are various ways we can turn the question around. "Where's the Roman Catholic church"? 

Problem is, there are multiple candidates for the Roman Catholic church. For instance, is the church of St. Augustine the same church as the church that excommunicated the Jansenists? Jansenism was a Catholic post-Reformation revival of Augustinian theology. 

Is the Tridentine church the same church as the post-Vatican II church? Is the church of anti-modernist popes like Pius IX and Leo the XIII the same church as the church of Pope Francis? For that matter, is the church of Pope John-Paul II the same church as the church of Pope Francis?

iii) Where is the NT church before the Reformation? Where do we find the NT church in the medieval Latin church? 

iv) Where do we find the Roman Catholic church in the Gospels? Where do we find "the church" in the Gospel of Mark? Mark's Gospel never mentions "the church". Where do we find "the church" in the Gospel of Luke? Luke's Gospel never mentions "the church". Where do we find "the church" in the Gospel of John? John's Gospel never mentions "the church". The only Gospel that even mentions "the church" is Matthew's Gospel. And it mentions "the church" just two times. That's it!

In fairness, a concept can be present where the word is absent. In the Gospels there's a notion of Christian community. But you can't find the Roman Catholic church anywhere in the Gospels.

All four Gospels have accounts of the Last Supper, but there's nothing about a priest officiating at the Eucharist. And only one Gospel has a clear reference to Christian baptism. 

Where are the seven sacraments in the Gospels? Nowhere. 

Where's the cult of the saints in the Gospels? Nowhere.

Where's the Roman Catholic priesthood in the Gospels? Nowhere.

Where's the papacy in the Gospels? Nowhere.

Where's the Immaculate Conception in the Gospels (or anywhere in the NT)? Nowhere.

Where's the Assumption of Mary in the NT? Nowhere.

Now, a Catholic apologist might object that it's anachronistic to expect a blueprint of the church in the Gospels. But is that an unreasonable expectation? Catholic apologists tell us that the Roman Catholic church was directly founded by Jesus Christ. Catholic apologists tell us that Jesus instituted the seven sacraments. So it's a reasonable expectation that when we compare the Roman Catholic church to the Gospels, we find something in the Gospels recognizably corresponding to the Roman Catholic church. 

A Catholic apologist might counter that Jesus indirectly founded the Roman Catholic church by establishing the initial conditions, then leaving the rest to theological development. Suppose we grant that for the sake of argument. If so, why can't we claim the Protestant Reformation as an intended theological development?