The Catholic Church has never claimed that individual bishops are inerrant.
I know, I meant it as a straightforward question. I DO believe that the scribes of the scriptures were given a special grace. Since later bishops did not have it, that diminishes the powers transferred through Apostolic succession.
But I understand your dilemma: because you reject the idea that the Holy Spirit has ever guided the Church that compiled and finalized the New Testament, you have no logical reason to believe that the New Testament is inerrant.
No, there's no dilemma at all. And Kosta is right about my "pre-fab" answer in this situation, (as if only Protestants have pre-fab answers or that it is a bad thing). I actually think the Holy Spirit guided the Church 1000 times more strongly than you do! :) I don't think that God left anything to chance with the creation of the scriptures, so He didn't have to "hope" that all the scribes would follow His guidance. He took matters into His own control and produced the works despite the fallibility of the scribes.
"as if only Protestants have pre-fab answers or that it is a bad thing"
They don't and its not. It's all about that bit in St. Peter's epistle:
"We have the more sure word of prophecy; and you do well that you heed it, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns, and the morning star arises in your hearts: knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation. For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke, being moved by the Holy Spirit."
The whole point to this passage is that divine revelation comes from God through holy men of God, that divine revelation cannot be of private interpretation but only of the interpretation of those holy men of God, and that the Church thus has "the more sure word of prophecy" than do those who try to interpret it privately -- by whatever personal, spiritual, or scholarly means.
The entire witness of the Fathers is that they did not ever consider themselves to be writing anything new, but only to be restating for their own times what those sure words of divine revelation say and mean. This, by definition, leads to pre-fab answers (a major criticism of the Fathers is that they "never say anything new.")
The question, FK, is whether whose pre-fab answers you are going to trust -- those of the Fathers of the Church from the earliest centuries, or those of the Reformation's fathers (not directly appealed to as authority, of course, but passed off as being understandings that each person just happens to arrive at through independent reading of Scripture...)
The other thing that I would point out is that the pre-fab answer needs actually to fit the question being asked. You do a pretty good job of trying actually to answer questions and statements directly, and I appreciate that. What is annoying is when a specific question is asked, and the reply given is "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God..." -- a point no-one disagrees with but that had nothing to do with the point at hand.