So you're saying that Protestants conflate total inerrancy with total sufficiency. Yet what you fail to notice is that Catholics also tend to conflate the two and demonstrate their rejection of the latter by also rejecting the former.
There is no excuse for anyone of any religion to conflate the two. This is easily proven as follows: is Genesis totally inerrant? Yes it is. Is it totally sufficient? No it is not. Expand to include the entire Bible, and there you have it.
The Church has never rejected inerrancy. A lot turns on the meaning one places on “error,” though. Its use in baseball is instructive, however, The scorer sitting in the pressbox may judge something as a misplay, of assigning fault, where I sitting in the stands and having a better angle, would not. My problem with Biblical scholars is that they presume to judge what they cannot see at all and do not know that they do not see because they do not expect to see it. Emile Zola famously was shown x-rays of a leg bone miraculously healed at Lourdes. He continued to treat it as a hoax. It could not happen because it could not happen.