A lot of religions make a lot of remarkable claims. It doesn't mean they're true. Scripture is the Protestant's magisterial authority. It is the law and the gospel of Christ our king. He wrote it to reveal things to us in a way we could understand. Have you ever noticed how many times in the gospels Jesus asks the question: "Have you not read?" We have no magisterium. Christ rules His church from heaven by His Word and Spirit. This does not mean we do not have ministerial authorities. We have living teachers, pastors, scholars who have the Spirit of Christ living and working in them. We also have great regard for creeds and confessions. It just means we do not consider them authorities in themselves. (Don't trust, verify.) They are subject to the word of God. Members of churches are also subject to the authority of the church, and if they teach or live in such a way that is contrary to the church's belief, they may be put under discipline. We have no popes in Protestantism: we believe it is right for each of us to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. That includes submitting our interpretation to another and being willing to accept correction, especially from a faithful pastor or other church leader. What is baffling to me about other traditions is that they seem to doubt their ability to interpret the Scriptures accurately themselves, but at the same time they seem very confident in their ability to interpret the church fathers' interpretation of Scripture. Claiming these church leaders had extra-biblical revelation (hidden knowledge) via spoken word, regarding the fundamentals of the faith, not included in Scripture, and asserted after the time of the death of eyewitnesses to the risen Christ, is quite a problematic, and, in my view, very cult-like claim. There is no getting around using your own individual rational mind to come to a conclusion. The way to determine the truth of any matter is not to ask who the person (or group) is who is saying it--it is to determine whether it conforms to reality or not. A well-informed Protestant will not argue that it is Protestants who made the hard fork. The Reformers sought to retrieve the teaching and practice of the ancient church. The claim is that Rome veered off. The claim is that we are more catholic and apostolic than you are, and you got into novelty regarding the substance and essence of the faith, particularly regarding the authority of Scripture and the way of salvation. To paraphrase the apostle Paul, "...even if we, or an angel from heaven, or a bishop or bishopric that claims direct succession from the apostles by the laying on of hands, or a pope who is the supposed head of the church and direct successor to Peter, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed." As I understand it then, Trent is the hard fork. Apostolic succession is irrelevant if it has failed to preserve the true gospel as handed down by Paul in his written letters (which certainly would not contradict his spoken word).