>>563277
To find out which denomination is correct one, we can't rely on human autonomy and individual desire to find our answer (in Christianity, that's self-defeating), rather we need a specific standard. So, what's the standard? Universally, Christians try to imitate what it's like to follow Christ, and the best example of that are those followed Christ, namely the apostles. This is where disagreements arise, but I think we can reduce the major topics into four questions to find the correct denominations, which are:
What's completely apostolic?
What is the role of God's grace upon the believer?
What is everyone's position in regards to original sin?(I wish I can word this better)
Is God's congregation visible or invisible?
Here are some links to get started. Although, they're a bit biased, I'll admit.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/alexander_a/canon.iii.ii.html
https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/theology/general-christian-topics/doctrine-questions/4703746-2-thessalonians-2-15
https://michaeljkruger.com/were-early-churches-ruled-by-elders-or-a-single-bishop/
https://bible.org/seriespage/8-grace-god-part-i-ephesians-15-12-21-10
http://justforcatholics.org/a84.htm
https://onefold.wordpress.com/category/sacred-tradition/
https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/visible.html
http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc09/htm/iv.v.lxxiv.html
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc3.iii.x.xi.html
(notice that 80% to 50% of doctrines that separates protestants from cathodox begin in the 4h century with the rise of monasticism. Because they wouldn't practiced or as emphasized as before means this cannot be the result of apostolic tradition, since these doctrines was unknown to the apostles or out-right rejected.)
As for Matthew 16:18, about 80% of the ECFs consider the rock as not peter himself, rather most of them say it's the confession of peter that is the rock. The papacy in Rome as the bishop over the whole church started with the Justinian code when emperor Justinian handed over his western power to the bishop of Rome to dissolve some ecclesiastical disputes.
Before someone mentions about who gets to interpret holy scripture, it's necessary to note that during the late 3rd century a church figure by the name of Origen formed an entire school on the interpretation of the bible. I think we should find that suspicious, if there's "apostolic" tradition for the meanings of the bible, Origen should've just visited all the patriarchs for the meaning than to devote his time and money for researching (hypothetically) known interpretations. What is even more troubling is that most of the church adopted his Alexandrian allegorical method soon afterwards, even though he's considered a heretic by said church. Finally there's st.Augustine, who was the leading bishop in the council of hippo and carthage, created entire literary work called On Christian Doctrine, which discusses the interpretation of the bible and not once you will the word 'tradition' contained in it. In fact, Augustine complements the idea of multiple interpretations and comparing scripture with scripture, than to first consult the Vatican.