It is what this all means that is the real issue.
Of course: we don't have two Holy Spirits, one for the doctors and prelates who wrote the New Testament and another for the rest.
But you not only have the Holy Spirit aiding doctors and prelates teaching on faith and morals, but making such inspired just like Scripture is.
>Infallibility is not “on par” with divinely inspired Scripture.
Did I say it was? I said that the nature of inspiration is the same today as in 1 c. Infallibility is a smaller notion indeed: it is merely absence of error.
Well yes, since your objection , in the context of what was written as inspired Scripture, was that that prelates and doctors of the Holy Church wrote inspired teaching (which you failed to gave an example of).
And you went on to affirm "when a doctor of the Church speaks on matters of faith and morals, his words are inspired by God," and that "in the inspiration part there is no difference" btwn a doctor or prelate speaking on matters of faith and morals and that of Scripture, for if the former is "wholly infallible obviously it is wholly inspired by God." Thus that which is infallible is God-breathed as Scripture is,
But your making infallible teaching as being inspired of God is contrary to the theological teaching that defines that 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
Are you now telling me that infallibility is merely absence of error, not inspired of God as Scripture is, though the later is different due to "its historical value of the canonical New Testament as direct witness to Christ?"
How many infallible statements would you even approx. say there are?
The entire teaching of the Holy Church, as expressed for example in the Catechism of the Church is infallible. Inspired, -- we don't really know as it is a stronger claim. Here is a good example: Leo XIII's Prayer to St. Michael. The Rosary prayers, for sure. Most of the insights in the Summa. On Incarnation of St. Athanasius. Often reading the fathers of the Church you see the presence of the Holy Spirit in them, certain super human quality.
Finally some examples, but you already said such as inspired, and to deny that was contrary to the faith of the church. Where are you getting this idea that all the teaching that is expressed in the Catechism of the Church is infallible and thus divinely inspired, and such things as Leo XIII's Prayer to St. Michael. or most of the insights in the Summa?
The CE and other sources do not even make infallible papal teaching Divinely inspired, but protected, while others also hold that the teachings of the catechism are not all infallible, but only those that were est. as being so before it.
While being overall a "sure norm," Cardinal Ratzinger in his 'Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church" states, "The individual doctrine which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess. ( p. 27). Men as Akin thus states that "one must look to other documents and to the tradition of the Church to establish the doctrinal weight of any particular point in the Catechism." - http://jimmyakin.com/2005/02/ratzinger_on_th.html"
(And RCs also say the 1994 Catechism originally defined a lie as, "To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who has the right to know the truth." (2483) http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php?topic=728840.0)
Your description also seems to blur the distinctions made btwn different magisterial levels of teaching and assent relative to such.
And esp. in the case of the such things as most of the insights in the Summa, who decides which one's are infallible versus not? Canon law 749§3 states: No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident. (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P2H.HTM) And thus "only the decisions of ecumenical councils and the ex cathedra teaching of the pope have been treated as strictly definitive in the canonical sense," which works against the broad inclusion you example.
But thus it is evident that what is "manifestly evident" is a matter of interpretation, and thus there is disagreement about what is infallible (again, some say all encyclicals [and perhaps Bulls or Fidei Depositum] are, others not). Of what use is infallibility if it is uncertain about what is? If the infallible trumpet sounds an uncertain sound, who shall prepare themselves to battle any allowance of dissent?
Sounds downright Clintonian!
True. This hysterical opposition to the inspired (at least in this verse) translation by St. Jerome is childish and beside the point.
inspired just like Scripture is.
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.
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; but I did not ask the Holy Ghost to teach me arithmetic: it is not an inspired statement. On the other hand, "Oh my Jesus, lead all souls to heaven" is not an infallible statement for the trivial reason that it is a petition and not a statement of fact. But it surely is inspired, for it originates from the Fatima apparition of Out Lady.
Where are you getting this idea that all the teaching that is expressed in the Catechism of the Church is infallible...?
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".
and such things as Leo XIII's Prayer to St. Michael [are divinely inspired]
Well, I picked a prayer that originated from a vision that St. Pope Leo XIII had, and so as any vision of a holy person it is precisely that, inspired. Also, my examples are of works that are unusual, -- not like 2+2; that, too leads me to think that they are inspired as written by the Holy Ghost. But there is no definitive list, if that is what you are asking about. Compare "the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you" (John 14:26) -- there is no list there either. As a general rule, whenever the Church speaks in one voice, that is the Holy Ghost speaking.
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.
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.
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. Further, whether a statement is infallibly defined or not, if the Magisterium proposed something for our salvation, we should obey and seek to understand. 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.