FK: I was confused because of what the Catechism says... "God is the author of Sacred Scripture...written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit...they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself...God inspired the human authors of the sacred books...though [God] acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more...[t]he inspired books teach the truth....we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures"
That's what I call the "truth" by fiat." Sounds positively "protestantized." Unfortunately, the RCC has been suffering from "protestantitis" for a few decades, especially the American Catholic Church, and especially the one on the West Coast.
Even if all this were true, the fact is that (1) there is no proof of any of this and (2) it does not account for errors, disagreements, and inconsistencies that have plagued the New Testament scriptures all along.
The claim that the authors were "consigned to writing whatever [God] wanted written, and no more" is simply not true when one considers that +Paul speaks of "his gospel" or when he explicitly states, on more than one occasion, that the commandments he is giving are not from the Lord but from him personally.
Despite the fancy definitions and allegations that the Holy Spirit worked "inside" the authors, the Church still gives credit to the authors (smart approach in my opinion), thus always leaving the door open for "human variation," of which there is abundance.
Ultimately, the Catechism you cite does not say how one is to determine the truthfulness of these allegations, and also does not say that anyone can read and "extract" the message of truth found in the scriptures, and I would be the first to admit that the Bible does express certain things we know that are not to be found in the natural world, things not of this world.
You know, we are all "inspired" from the moment we wake up until we fall asleep. Something "inspires" us to do things all day long. My problem with this terminology used is that (1) it is loaded with implications and (2) it is "fluff" without substance.
Something moves us and motivates us to do things, to think about, to wish and to search. The trick is knowing what drives us. Some people believe they are being used by God to do things; others simply do what they are "inspired" to do and leave the reasons behind.
It's probably better for me to let the Latins defend the Catechism as they choose. My position remains that the scriptures self-authenticate, and if God went to all that trouble to create His word, then He would also see to it that it remained pure for His purposes through all the problems you listed (if they even existed). I think we have a great disagreement about how many problems there actually are with the scriptures.
The claim that the authors were "consigned to writing whatever [God] wanted written, and no more" is simply not true when one considers that +Paul speaks of "his gospel" or when he explicitly states, on more than one occasion, that the commandments he is giving are not from the Lord but from him personally.
The Catechism is correct. (ACKK!!!!) :) When Paul speaks of "his gospel" he is perfectly clear that he is not speaking of some gospel that he made up. No, he is speaking only of that Gospel that was given to him personally by Christ. So, Paul's listeners understand that it is Christ's Gospel given to Paul. Paul adds NOTHING to that Gospel that was given to him, EXCEPT, it appears, for a few off hand comments which he clearly identifies.
Of those comments, I can't think of any that would reach the level of "commandment". Do you have an example? One of them amounted to saying he thought it would be better if people remained single, like him. However, not being an idiot, he understood that if everyone followed him on this then it would be the end of the human race. So, that couldn't have been a commandment.
You know, we are all "inspired" from the moment we wake up until we fall asleep. Something "inspires" us to do things all day long. My problem with this terminology used is that (1) it is loaded with implications and (2) it is "fluff" without substance.
I am fine with "inspired", but I like "God-breathed" better. I think that better describes what is actually going on.