Communion of Saints, Apostolic Succession, Authority, and Conscience

The conversation has been rich (recent posts are here, here, here, here, here, here, and here).  This is in response to Steve's May 9 post, The Communion of the Saints and the Big Tent.  Steve presents two images of the Church: the apostolic and the communion of saints and recognizes that these two images are not necessarily mutually exclusive.  Yet, he hints (correct me if I am wrong Steve) at preferring the "communion of saints" imagery, quoting Joan Chittister as imagining the Church as not an institution "but rather 'the gathering of the seekers who celebrate the continuing presence of Christ among them.'"

Isn't this a reductionist view?  Isn't the Church both/and?  Isn't it both the communion of the saints and an institution governed by a non-democratic heirarchy who are successors to the apostles?  The Catechism clearly contemplates both images.  The call to holiness clearly precedes the insitutional aspects of the Church.  Paragraph 773 says that the "'Marian' dimension of the Church precedes the 'Petrine.'" 

But, the institutional Church is a reality.  And, given human weakness, an institutional governing structure is necessary to provide an order and direction toward holiness.  Look at the Protestant world, which views the Church primarily as the communion of believers with no heirarchical structure.  Today there are more than 20,000 denominations and counting.  These denominations often disagree with one another (in mutually exclusive ways) over such core issues as the means to salvation.  How is the "saint" to know what proposed teaching is "true?"  Further back in our common history there were vigorous and centuries long fights over such central issues as the nature of Christ and the nature of the Godhead.  It was the institution that settled these questions.   

Steve, would you agree that Christ set up an institutional structure and that the bishops (with primacy in the Bishop of Rome) have governing authority over the Church?  If you agree, don't you (we) owe them respect because of their God-given office?  This brings us back to Cardinal Dulles article.  Cardinal Dulles says that "Dissent, if it arises, should always be modest and restrained.  Dissent that is arrogant, strident, and bitter can have no right of existence in the Church.  Those who dissent must be careful to explain that they are proposing only their personal views, not the doctrine of the Church.  They must refrain from bringing pressure on the magisterium by recourse of popular media."  Is Cardinal Dulles wrong?  If so, how?  Shouldn't the saints attempting to celebrate Christ's presence be modest and restrained?