I don’t think the Catechism uses nor Vatican II used “inerrant” – is that wrong?
In that you are correct. Technically, we are all incorrect, as the Church issues documents in Latin, then translates them into other languages (of which English is only one).*
Even with words corresponding morphologically and etymologically there is not necessarily a one-to-one correspondence. * With those disclaimers out of the way…
Inerrantia (inerrancy) is used at least once that I can find, it is assumed/implied to be an accepted doctrine by the PBC statement of 18 June 1915. The Latin is here:*
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19150618_parusia-paolo_lt.html
An English translation can be found here:
catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/bible/pbc.htm
Here is an excerpt:
Concerning the Parousia or Second Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Epistles of the Apostle St Paul
June 18, 1915 (AAS 7 [1915] 357f; EB 432ff; Dz 2179ff)
I: In order to meet the difficulties occurring in the Epistles of St Paul and other Apostles in passages which treat of the “Parousia”, as it is called, or second coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, is it allowed to a Catholic exegete to assert that, though the Apostles under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost teach nothing erroneous, they none the less express their own human opinions which may rest on error or misconception?*
Answer In the negative.
II: In view of the correct concept of the apostolic office and the undoubted fidelity of St Paul to the teaching of the Master ; in view also of the Catholic doctrine concerning the inspiration and
inerrancy of Holy Scripture according to which whatever a sacred Writer asserts, declares, suggests, should be held to be asserted, declared, suggested by the Holy Ghost and after a careful examination on their own merits of the passages in the Epistles of St Paul which are in complete harmony with our Lord’s own manner of speaking, should it be asserted that the Apostle Paul said nothing whatever in his writings which is not in complete harmony with that ignorance of the time of the Parousia which Christ himself proclaimed to belong to men?
Answer: In the affirmative.
III: After consideration of the Greek phrase hemeis hoi zontes hoi perileipomenoi; and after careful examination of the exposition of the Fathers, above all of St John Chrysostom, who was completely at home both in his native language and in the Pauline Epistles, is it lawful to reject as far-fetched and destitute of any solid foundation the interpretation traditional in the Catholic schools (and retained even by the Reformers of the sixteenth century) that explains the words of St Paul in 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, without in any way involving the assertion that the Parousia was so near that the Apostle counted himself and his readers among the faithful who will be left alive and go to meet Christ?*
Answer: In the negative.
- Examples. Without any intention of completeness or exhaustiveness, some examples of doctrines relative to the three paragraphs described above can be recalled.
I know the PBC statement might not be considered current by some; without ceding the validity of this train of thought, I note the content of this doctrine was confirmed by John Paul II in his “DOCTRINAL COMMENTARY ON THE CONCLUDING FORMULA OF THE PROFESSIO FIDEI” in 1998:
To the truths of the first paragraph belong the articles of faith of the Creed, the various Christological dogmas21 and Marian dogmas;22 the doctrine of the institution of the sacraments by Christ and their efficacy with regard to grace;23 the doctrine of the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist24 and the sacrificial nature of the eucharistic celebration;25 the foundation of the Church by the will of Christ;26 the doctrine on the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff;27 the doctrine on the existence of original sin;28 the doctrine on the immortality of the spiritual soul and on the immediate recompense after death;29 the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts;30 the doctrine on the grave immorality of direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being.31
Here the late Holy Father placed the doctrine of inerrancy in the ‘de fide’ category.*
