If you had looked then you should have seen that my reply was not to your post but to that of Romulus to yours, which denied that most protestant congregations do not have holy orders, when in fact it is Rome that does not have Scriptural holy orders
“Because the entire concept of “Protestant” invites each individual to be their own “Pope”. One interpretation is as good as another, as long as I convince myself that I am being guided by the Holy Spirit.
That is also a straw man, as under SS no one is a pope, or otherwise claiming assured veracity under the premise of being individually assuredly guided by the Holy Spirit, but which is a distinctive papal claim.
The pope claims to be assuredly correct when speakng according to his infallibly defined formula, even independent of the bishops. Thus it is in Rome that we see the epitome of "sola individuum," while under SS the veracity of a Truth claim is dependent upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, and which is Scriptural.
In contrast, the RC argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16)
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God.
But which renders Rome fundamentally contrary to the establishment of the NT church.
For indeed, the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation. (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34)
And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
But what of the divisions that result from competing interpretations? See post 139 here for more.