"If the declaration of zero-popes were followed, we would not have the spectacle of others telling us what veneration of saints is or what the Mass is, or the Scripture is."
You know, MD, I find myself in the odd position of siding with FK on this one. That is not to say that I think that personal revelations about the meaning of scripture are all equally valid as inspired by the HS. Demonstrably they are not. The default position, however, is not an infallible papacy but rather an infallible Church. In all honesty, I've always thought that the old Protestant saw about "Every man a pope", whatever its pedigree, is a very bad and misleading comment.
FK, you say that you don't claim claim infallibility, but you do calim confidence in scripture. Well, we all have that. With all due respect, while you don't claim infallibility, you certainly do claim, in the face of centuries of evidence to the contrary, that it is the HS which leads you individually to the proper understanding of scripture. I can understand how such a notion can arise out of the Western cult of the individual, but unless you are ready to subscribe to the revisionist Episcopalian notion of "pluriform truths" about the Faith, I think that in rejecting the Pope, you have likewise rejected The Church and an assurance of The Truth or a fair and humble statement that The Church simply doesn't know.
I doubt that I would be ready to sign up for much of anything Episcopalian these days, and pluriform truth would be on the list. :) While I do reject the Pope and a majority of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church I do also love and honor God's Church. I think they are two completely different entities (although many RCs are in God's Church) and I reject the claimed monopoly on truth by the hierarchy.