"Name one position held by Pope John Paul II, for example, that is incompatible with American conservativism." -Modernman
Would he have agreed with America's Framers about the proper structure of government in both church and state?
When one studies the history of New Testament "church government", one can readily see that the bottom-up, checks and balances, Republican form of limited government that America's Framers gave us, is based straight out of the New Testament CHURCH GOVERNMENT example. [Acts 6:3; 1:15, 22, 23, 25; 2Cor.8:19, etc.]
Paul, Barnabus and Titus are shown as installing the elders that were chosen by the congregations [Acts 6:3-6; 14:23 and Titus 1:5].
Paul says to the whole church congregation: "Pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom whom we may appoint to this duty." (of servant aka deacon)
The apostles had the *unique authority* to found and govern the early church, and they could speak and write the words of God. Many of their written words became the NT Scripture.
In order to qualify as an apostle someone had to had seen Christ with his own eyes after he rose from the dead **and** had to have been specifically installed/appointed by Christ as an apostle.
In place of living apostles present in the church to teach and govern it, we have instead the writings of the apostles in the books of the NT.
Those New Testament Scriptures fulfill for the church today the absolute authoritative teaching and governing functions which were fulfilled by the apostles themselves during the early years of the church.
Because of that, there is no need for any direct "succession" or "physical descent" from the apostles.
"Now we [God's elect individuals / The Bride of Christ / The invisible universal church of God] have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, in order that we might know the things that are freely given to us by God' (I Cor. 2:12).
1 John 2:27
Romans 8:28-30; 9:11-13; Acts 13:48; Eph. 1:4-6
John 6:65
BTW, I'm curious. If Rome cannot affirm the authority of Scripture apart from the caveat that tradition is necessary to explain the Bible's true meaning, can you explain how that does NOT make tradition a superior authority to Scripture?
And since Rome claims infallibility for itself, can you explain how that doesn't make the Scriptures ultimately irrelevant.
With respect, that would make sense only is every single thing Rome uttered was considered infallible. The use of Papal Infallibility is EXTREMELY rare. But to answer your question, how can infallibility make the Scriptures irrelevant if the entire basis for the Church rests on Christ; Christ who left us the Scriptures through His Divine will? If anything, the infallible pronouncements issue not necessarily from the Pope as much as from the Holy Spirit. They do not supercede Scripture, they issue from the Holy Spirit, thus confirming Scripture.
Pax