Therefore let no man glory in men. (1 Corinthians 3:21)
Meanwhile, that Jerome etc. was Divinely inspired as were the writers of Scripture is the issue.
The Protestants confuse the inspired quality with the canonicity. Just bear that in mind: all these rhetorical "just like" are making reference to two independent attributes of a religious text. The Church teaching is by and large inspired, and so is the Holy Scripture; but the Holy Scripture stands out as the true and direct witness of Christ and the Catholic Faith: it is both inspired and canonical.
This has already been dealt with. You stated that "in the inspiration part there is no difference," btwn inspired, "dictated" statements by doctors and prelates of the church, but "the difference is in the historical value of the canonical New Testament as direct witness to Christ." The canonicity is a result of book being established as Divinely inspired, but "in the inspiration part there is no difference" according to you.
your making infallible teaching as being inspired of God
I just got done telling you that infallibility and inspiration are also two different things. If I say that 2+2=4, it would be an infallible statement of mine, because it contains no error;
Rather, what you had told me was that "when a doctor of the Church speaks on matters of faith and morals, his words are inspired by God," and as regards that, in response to my question, "Are all infallible teachings inspired of God, if not wholly?" you said that "If a teaching is wholly infallible obviously it is wholly inspired by God." This did not mean all the work was infallible but the part that was infallible was inspired.
Thus you hold that "when a doctor of the Church speaks on matters of faith and morals, his words are inspired by God," and thus "it is wholly inspired by God" and in the actual "inspiration part there is no difference" btwn Divine inspiration of Scripture and Holy Spirit inspired, "dictated" statements by doctors and prelates of the church. 2+2=4 is indeed infallible, which means an atheist can speak infallible truth, which i myself have expressed, but we are dealing with teaching by doctors and prelates of the church being inspired as Scripture is, which was your argument, despite the difference "in the historical value of the canonical New Testament as direct witness to Christ."
Any definitive teaching of the Church on the content of our faith is infallible
...and thus divinely inspired
That does not follow, although it may be. There is no "thus".
Now it seems obvious that "If a teaching is wholly infallible obviously it is wholly inspired by God" is no longer obviously the case. But an infallible teaching that is only 80% infallible is not an infallible teaching, thus despite what seems to be later backtracking, if doctors and prelates of the church when speaking on F+M were infallible then they were wholly infallible, and thus they must be wholly inspired.
Thus the point thus remains that you hold writings like parts of the summa are infallible and Divinely inspired, and "in the inspiration part there is no difference" as regards "Divine inspiration of Scripture and Holy Spirit inspired statements by doctors and prelates of the church, yet the sources i provided deny that,
such as (again), Infallibility "merely implies exemption from liability to error," "not that either the pope or the Fathers of the Council are inspired as were the writers of the Bible," in "which the human agent is not merely preserved from liability to error but is so guided and controlled that what he says or writes is truly the word of God, that God Himself is the principal author of the inspired utterance." "God is not the author of a merely infallible, as He is of an inspired, utterance; the former remains a merely human document." - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
In addition, while you hold that Jerome was inspired in writings his translation, as were docs and prelates of the church speaking on faith and morals, Tommy Lane, S.S.L., S.T.D. (License in Sacred Scripture, Doctorate in Sacred Theology) states ,
Our translations are not inspired; only the original text in the original language is inspired. http://www.frtommylane.com/bible/introduction/inspiration.pdf
Other Catholics hold that translations are not inspired, and one also states that "the Vulgate is a composite work, many parts of which Jerome did not translate" citing Plater, W.E. and H.J. White. Grammar of the Vulgate. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1926.
Trent did affirm the Vulgate to be the authentic text for sermons and disputations, but this did not exclude textual corrections, or specify which version of the Vulgate, and which lead to the the embarrassing Sistine Vulgate .
as any vision of a holy person it is precisely that, inspired.
Again, the problem here remains that in the actual "inspiration part there is no difference" btwn Divine inspiration of Scripture and Holy Spirit inspired, "dictated" statements by doctors and prelates of the church. While "the difference is in the historical value of the canonical New Testament as direct witness to Christ," your position still greatly expands upon the number of texts that i see RCs holding as Divinely inspired. Which essentially makes them equal with Scripture as being the word of God, God being the author, even though RC teaching i see denies this even of papal infallible teaching.
no other weight than that which they already possess (Ratzinger)
Correct: the Catechism merely summarizes, organizes and lists the doctrines that had been infallible already. It is not a new teaching. As an infallible document it could not be otherwise.
Ratzinger was not saying Catechism merely summarizes, organizes and lists the doctrines that had been infallible already, so that all it contains is infallible teaching, but the infallible nature of its teachings depend upon whether they were previously est. as being infallible. Which as said, is often much a matter of interpretation.
Your description also seems to blur the distinctions made btwn different magisterial levels
But I said nothing about that, so I hardly "blurred" anything. Of course there are levels and degrees of applicability, and one needs to pay attention to those lest he overclaims inspiration or infallibility of any doctrine.
Whether your expressly said so or not, it remains that making the entire teaching of the Holy Church, as expressed for example in the Catechism of the Church, to be infallible (and insomuch as is infallible it is inspired) does blur the distinctions made btwn different magisterial levels, as it presumes all that is in the Catechism is infallible. Yet RCs much judge which level each teaching falls under if they want to know what level of assent is required (unless they just render implicit assent to all).
And as the Catechism can make mistakes and undergo corrections, this also requires judgment on the part of the RC.
Of what use is infallibility if it is uncertain about what is?
When you are not certain, you can ask, but generally there is a consensus on what is infallible speech and what is not.
Ask who? Cardinal Wuerl? Catholic Answers? FR? Or does the Vatican have a 800 number hotline to the pope? Who still may be dismissed as speaking as a private theologian. One can receive different answers from each on issues interpreting the higher levels of the magisterium, and Rome abounds with different opinions. One of which is the issue here of docs and prelates of the church speaking on faith and morals being inspired as were the original writers of Holy Writ.
Further, whether a statement is infallibly defined or not, if the Magisterium proposed something for our salvation, we should obey and seek to understand.
Obey first and understand/ask questions later is not the same as studying to determine the veracity of what is taught, and approved teaching i provided censures the later.
Infallibility is primarily a tool in the Pope's possession in case of a severe dissent among the bishops. So far it has not been needed.
Whether or not that is held as the case, he can act autocratically in so doing.
Now it seems obvious that "If a teaching is wholly infallible obviously it is wholly inspired by God" is no longer obviously the case
My understanding of inspiration vs. infallibility is indeed in some degree of flux, and you notice some progress I mad in the course of the thread; needless to say this is not something itself taught doctrinally. Yes, after some reading, including the quotes from a Catholic authority from you, I am inclined to think that infallibility is simply absence of error, which inspiration is active presence of the Holy Ghost in the writer. They are independent sets: a passage may be inspired and infallible, inspired and fallible, infallible and not inspired. Further, an inspired passage does not guarantee the inspired quality of the entire work. It is a job for the reader to form his conviction regarding each individual case; the Church deliberately avoids creating legalistic lists and tests that would span its entire legacy.
The distinctiveness of the canonized scripture is that it is held wholly inerrant and wholly inspired; whereas other works of the Church remain unclassified as such. The Church proclaims her doctrines infallible and inspired, but often and as a rule leaves the question open as to each particular book. There is no doubt however that much of the product of the Church is both inspired and infallible.
making the entire teaching of the Holy Church, as expressed for example in the Catechism of the Church, to be infallible (and insomuch as is infallible it is inspired) does blur the distinctions made btwn different magisterial level
It is of course an obvious truth that Catholicism does not hold such a sharp distinction between canonized scripture and other legacy, as well as modern work of the Magisterium. Arguing strictly form scripture is the only productive method of talking to Protestants, and I employ it often,— but with it comes the cost: the Protestant gets hardened in the heresy that all there is to learn about Jesus and His Gospel is in the scripture.
If there are further questions, I'd be glad to try answering.