That is exactly what I would say about the RCC, so I am led to believe that you did not mean this in the way I took it. :) My understanding of the Apostolic view is that the Holy Spirit specifically guides the hierarchy of the Church on the most important matters, but forsakes the laity of the same leadership. However, here you have the Spirit not even leading (with certainty) your hierarchy. Is this really the case? When I consider the rulings of the early Church, should I consider them all to be "man-made"?
God gave His authority to the Church; rather than the whims of individuals.
God LENT SOME of His authority to HIS Church. And I would agree with you that God did not give His authority to the whims of individuals, such as the Pope speaking ex cathedra. :)
My understanding of the Apostolic view is that the Holy Spirit specifically guides the hierarchy of the Church on the most important matters, but forsakes the laity of the same leadership.
You know the reply would be along the lines of "That's like saying God forsook the ears by not giving them the faculty of taste." Same notion, different slant on it. We'd appeal to the "diversities of gifts/one and the same Spirit" part of I Cor.
In the "gave v. lent" dispute I'd go with "delegated".
And I would agree with you that God did not give His authority to the whims of individuals, such as the Pope speaking ex cathedra. :)
If you review the exercise of the "ex cathedra function" you will find that it is anything but whimsical. (I note the smiley; just being pedantic here ...) Seriously though, the ramp up to the promulgation of Immaculate Conception and the Assumption was, viewed dispassionately, as extensive and bureaucratic as imaginable, or so I read. There were petitions from the laity; advice as taken from many many theologians and bishops, and all that.
J.R. Neuhaus has expressed the idea of Infallibility elegantly, thus: The Church will never require one to believe what is not so. I mention all this to provide an alternative spin to the very idea of one man getting a wild hair. And as I said, when one considers the character and piety (or lack of either) of some Popes, the effect of the doctrine is a lot like the effect of my windshield suddenly becoming virtually opaque as I was hauling sheep on an interstate (hard to explain why, but it was in any case a brief problem): It did wonders for my prayer life, at least temporarily. We are relying entirely on God to keep his promise. It may look like were relying on Popes, but, while some Popes are indeed saintly, enough aren't that they throw us back on God.
Wherefore it is written:
Surely it is God who saves me.[Not much anyway ....]
I will trust in Him and not be afraid.
The Lord is my stronghold and my sure defense
And He will be my Savior.
When Jesus was here on earth, He did physical things all the time; He walked, spoke, taught, etc.
God’s interference on earth now is much more subtle. He created and left His Church in order to speak, teach, etc. So therefore, everything except for His direct actions (miracles etc.) could be considered to be man made.
In the same way, the Bible writings were man made, the Bible assembled was man made, the writings of the Church are man made and the Church doctrines are man made.
We don’t say that the Holy Spirit forsakes the laity; we say that individuals are more prone to Scriptural error than the deliberative body that we call the Magisterium. We do not say that the Holy Spirit does not influence or direct individuals, we just work harder to keep them on the straight and narrow theologically. Look at the Church Fathers who strayed. Augustine and Origen, to name two.
We don’t think of God as lending authority since it implies that He would take it back.