Well, there you have it. It's just like the Catholic definition of atonement (which was modified over time as well). So now the Bible is just "common" with every other "truthful" writing? Man can be just as inspired as God. What utter blasphemy.
I'm sure Augustine, Justin, Clement and others thought their writings were truthful but they would not have said their writing rise to the same level as the scriptures. That is evidence because they simply didn't include them in the Bible.
The fact is that Catholics no longer believe in the inspiration of the Bible but see it simply as another "truthful" document. This definition proves that. Under this view Catholicism isn't any different than the Mormons or Jehovah Witnesses who have other material to support their "religion"?
Catholics have deserted the doctrine of Atonement. Now they deserted the inspiration of the scriptures. I am aghast, but not surprised. But, more importantly, I'm sure the early church fathers would be aghast as well who took great pains to ensure the inspirational scriptures would be recognized for just what they were.
Is English not a tongue you are familiar with? Why twist the truth so violently when ON THE FACE OF IT my post is at total odds with your claim?
I really don't see how you get this from the text. Really.
You quoted:Inspiration can be considered in God, who produces it; in man, who is its object; and in the text, which is its term.
God, to be precise, is not "inspired". He inspires, and He inspires the mind of man, as the article's quote of 2 Pet 1:21 suggests.
In a section called
Erroneous views proposed by Catholic authors
the article condemns the view that the Church can make a "merely human writing" inspired. Earlier is says that no writing of the post apostolic age can be in the canon.
Can you help me see how the article says what you say it says?