I think this question has been terribly destructive in the history of Christianity - as have many other questions relating to what is necessary.
The human mind is dichotomizing - it is either/or - it is in favour of one thing or another - it never can hold a balance or state of indifference for long, especially when pressed.
Early Protestants seem to have loathed the way that the corrupt church (of many corrupt men) seemed to use its 'monopoly' over the sacraments as spiritual blackmail.
Perhaps this is why there is such a strange ambivalence among so many modern Protestants concerning the Eucharist/ Mass/ Lord's Supper/ Divine Liturgy - and with respect to priests, and especially bishops.
The hostility towards priests can only get worse as the corruption of modern priests and bishops becomes more extreme, and more obviously opposed to real Christianity and active against real Christianity.
None of this is cheerful; current and future Christians must expect to be living in a state of continual uncertainty and concern - and the clarity we all crave is not to be had, yet we must act decisively in our own lives, because the alternatives are so opposed that no compromise is conceivable.
So, we need to be utterly intransigent on core matters, yet all kinds of factors conspire to obscure what those core factors really are: on the one hand corrupt priests who zealously serve evil, on the other hand spiritual pride, whim, worldliness.
To be part of an evil bureaucracy at one extreme, at the other to be a freelance agent of evil.
We must seek to walk the middle way which is not a compromise but true: guided by what we seek rather than subordinating ourselves to devoted worldly support of what a dying world happens to have on offer this week.