Actually it doesn't. CCC 105 says "have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit." Now, under the inspiration is not the same as "dictated" or written down directly by God.
Here is CCC 105 again, which explains what "inspiration" means:
105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69
"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."70
So, if it is inspired, then it has God as its author. Someone disagreeing would have to explain how something could be error that has God as its author.
But, then, the Catechism is a book written and translated by mortals and capable of incompletely expressing the faith, even gross errors.
I see your point. :)
....... So, why should I uncritically assume that everything in the Catechism is necessarily correct and error-free any more than another book written and rewritten, copied, and recopied, adulterated, added-to, "harmonized" and what not throughout the history such as the Bible, and still insist that is "the word of God?"
Except for the Bible part, I completely agree. The CCC should be treated as any other uninspired work should, including writings by Reformers. It should be compared against scripture for accuracy and judged on that basis. In many cases a work will be right on some things and wrong on others. Of course people of different Christian faiths might disagree about which things are right or wrong. That does not change that it is correct to judge literary works against scripture.
And while the Bible has been translated many times and some translations are surely better than others, we trust that God has preserved His own word to such a degree that it is just as "useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" as it was when first assembled.
Everything in the Catechism you quoted form indicates that it was not God actually writing or dictating the Bible, but that he was "working in and through" (whatever that means) the human authors to express the truth.
It means that God allowed personalities and writing styles to come through, but that every word written served God's purpose. Nothing God wished was omitted and nothing extraneous to God's plan was included.
Jesus, being a pious Jew, would have believed, as all Jewish believers do, that only the Five Books of Moses are the very words of God (directly dictated to Moses), and that these books are set apart and above all the rest.
Jesus speaks of more than that:
In fact, just as the Christians stand only when the Gospels are read, the Jews stand only when the Five Books of Moses are read. Clearly, both Jews and Christians differentiate what are believed to be God's living words, from those written by human authors under God's (presumed) guidance.
In our church we stand whenever ANY scripture is read since it is all God's word. But I would agree with you that this practice of standing might give clues as to what a particular faith really thinks of the Bible as a whole.
I have never been in a Protestant Church which stands during the reading of all scripture. May I ask the particulars?
The people who wrote biblical books were not God. If God took possession of their hands and moved them according to his will instead of theirs, then Moses, Isaiah, Mark, Paul, etc. deserve no credit any more than my Stanley hammer deserves credit for driving a nail into a piece of wood.
The hammer did nothing to deserve the credit as the originator of my work. It is nothing but my dumb tool. Get rid of all the names of alleged human "authors" of the Bible then. They are misleading; people might think they actually wrote these books!
Someone disagreeing would have to explain how something could be error that has God as its author.
No, first those purporting that it was God who authored the Bible would have to prove that it was God who authored the Bible. Next, we would have to produce the original text for all biblical books, and only then could we ask how is it possible that something in the Bible could be in error?
And while the Bible has been translated many times and some translations are surely better than others, we trust that God has preserved His own word...as it was when first assembled.
I understand that this is a matter of faith (i.e. trust), and that I fully accept. But that does not make it a matter of fact.
Nothing God wished was omitted and nothing extraneous to God's plan was included.
Then why do we have so many different canons?
Jesus speaks of more than that: Luke 24:44-45 : 44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” 45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.
Luke's verse has no credibility as something Jesus would have uttered for several reasons:
In our church we stand whenever ANY scripture is read since it is all God's word. But I would agree with you that this practice of standing might give clues as to what a particular faith really thinks of the Bible as a whole.
Yes, that's certainly consistent with your beliefs. But so are the practices of other churches and religions with their beliefs.