John,
	Your four possibilities are definitely intriguing.
One good thing I can relate is that papal Rome wasn't as ubiquitous, or as far reaching, as they would have us think.
I had helped out an evangelist from India, back in Chicagoland, for some years, when he joined our church.
There were many migrants from India living in our area, and we would go weekly, to bring the gospel.
In addition to witnessing in English, he witnessed in Gujarati, Hindi, and Urdu.
Gujarati was his state's language, Hindi the national language, and Urdu was what muslims from Pakistan spoke.
Also, when I worked in a couple of plants in India, I had the pleasure of visiting a church service in one state.
I also met with a Christian Pastor in another state, who gave me Bibles and tracts to bring back to Chicago.
Also, I had the ability to speak with people, there, that I worked with.
In all the cases, either in Chicago, or in India, they had a common thing to tell me.
They all convinced me that they trace the history of Christianity, in India, back to the time of the apostles, not to the vatican.
They believe that it was Thomas who came to evangelize India, before he was martyred.
For many years they had churches there, some evangelical, some liberal, and some apostatized.
However, during that early time, they were spared the reach of papal Rome, while the vatican developed its false doctrines.
It was only after the time of the crusades that people from the vatican started showing up.
Then, only after the eastern Roman empire finally ended, that the vatican efforts increased to India.
However, their churches were not ruled by the vatican, during the important early years, like so many churches in Europe had been.