The progressive critique of fundamental premises of the Catholic faith in the 'Reformation' eventually gave rise—however sympathetically or hostilely you wish to understand this change of mind; as a return or restoration, or as a novelty and heresy*—to a Protestant faith (loosely speaking), wherein there was not priestly class (i.e. as having sacrametnal authority and power to confect the Eucharist as proper only to those made priests by consecration). And yet they (most) retained belief in the role of appointed bishops, with an at least pastoral role, and various (we might still say) liturgical functions.
Therefore, isn't the bishop of Rome (a.k.a. the Pope) just a wayward (i.e. according to Protestantism's ideals of the faith), at worst evil, bishop—but a bishop nonetheless?
I ask this because virtually all Protestants I have interacted with act as though he were simply not a bishop at all, in any sense—I presume because he doesn't teach what Protestants would describe as the true faith.
(This doesn't just apply to the bishop Rome, but any Catholic province or country.)
In Catholicism, such a bishop is a betrayer of the faith, and a wolf, but still a bishop. Why isn't this the case in Protestantism, generally speaking?
Or, put another way, what gave Protestants the right to simply disacknowledge the bishops who were legitimately appointed in their day, and found a Congregation without them? This is a serious question, because its answer must distinguish between heretics who do the very same thing!*
*To be clear, this is not an attack on Protestantism, or Protestants, but a question about fundamental church government and epistemology.