You might want to follow this link and read what Jimmy Akin has to say about inerrancy and the Vatican II document (Dei Verbum) that discusses it. Here is the key passage from that document:

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.

"Liberals" would ask, based on that document, whether the day of the week on which Jesus was crucified is a "truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation." On the other hand, "conservatives" would accuse "liberals" of falsely interpreting Dei Verbum and would claim the compromise language doesn't actually leave the loophole the "liberals" claim it does.

My personal opinion is that Dei Verbum is not the only official Church document that interpreted "liberally" (or, for that matter, simply ignored) in actual practice. Mainstream scholars (including the ones who produced the New American Bible) would, I think, be aghast if the Vatican required them teach and interpret the Bible in such a way as to deny any error of fact in it.

The question I would ask is whether it is reasonable to consider the vast majority of Catholic biblical scholars, the American bishops, and Pope Benedict XVI's writings (while he was the reigning pope!) to be contrary to Catholic teaching. Everybody knows there are errors and contradictions in both the Old and the New Testaments. There are people who claim that Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI was not merely a heretic but not the real pope. I think they can only be regarded as belonging to the lunatic fringe.

It is useless to speak of an totally inerrant Bible, if the alleged inerrancy is not a quality of something.

I couldn't agree more. And it seems to me Vatican II deliberately left the matter open to a more liberal interpretation without exactly endorsing one. But the old interpretation of inerrancy is fading, and I would say in practice, the more "liberal" interpretation has already won.

How about: much as it looks now ? Suppose that miracles are real, but, are not intended to have explanatory value such as a scientifically-trained commentator might want ? No one faults horses for not being cheeses or unicorns or the solution to Fermat's theorem - maybe miracles should be as little faulted as horses. Maybe trying to fit them into the known natural word is a category error, like trying to fit Harry Potter into what is known of late 20th-century Britain.

Protons do not need God to account for them. Nothing in particle physics needs God to account for them. Difficulties have to be accounted for using the same epistemological principles as are used for the bits that are - on the face of it at least - not difficult. To do otherwise is to destroy the unity of particle physics as a unified, coherent & internally self-consistent discipline.

The Standard Model in particle physics has not yet found a place for gravity - that is not a reason to discard the SM or to invoke the miraculous: it is a reason to develop & deepen the SM & one's understanding of & insight into the environing disciplines. If something is intelligible without invoking the miraculous, the miraculous should be ignored throughout the study of that something. It is conceivable that WW2 was caused by a miracle - but its causation is sufficiently accounted for by supposing that it was caused by the purely natural factors mentioned in the history books.

It is conceivable that the Book of Revelation is based on the Harry Potter books, and theories can be invented to support the idea - but there is no serious reason to suppose this, and many solid reasons not to.

If something is miraculous, natural causes will play no part in its character as miracle. The water at Cana was natural - but the wine was not, and its being wine is not explicable by its having been water.

But it is a matter of Catholic doctrine whether or not Ratzinger is imputing error to the texts. That is all I am interested in. For if he is, I would like to know how that can be squared with the text of his own 1998 "Note". I am not interested in literalism, but in the seeming contradiction.

There is the further and not unimportant question of where exactly the alleged freedom from all error is to be located: what is the *locus* of this alleged total inerrancy:

1. The "original" (whatever that may mean) autographs of the sundry texts ?

2. The books in their canonical forms - and if so, which one(s) ? The LXX 1 Samuel 17 & Jeremiah differ from the Masoretic text of the TaNaKh. Are both inspired & inerrant ?

3. The graphic marks that constitute the texts ?

4. The interpretationof the texts in the life of the Church ?

5. The interptetation of the texts by the episcopal or Papal Magisterium ?

6. (For the OT:) the unvocalised consonantal text of the TaNaKh ?

7 The Vocalised text of the TaNaKh ?

8. Is the TI located in something else ? If so - what ?

It is useless to speak of an totally inerrant Bible, if the alleged inerrancy is not a quality of something.

But I don't want to stray from the point... Thanks for replying, by the way. It's much appreciated.

Note the statement

The object taught in this paragraph is constituted by all those doctrines of divine and catholic faith which the Church proposes as divinely and formally revealed and, as such, as irreformable.

It is not a matter of Catholic doctrine what day of the week Jesus was crucified on. You are misreading this document as if it advocated biblical literalism. That has never been the position of the Catholic Church, going back to the earliest days. Catholic biblical scholars are perfectly free to note the discrepancies between the Synoptics and John and to either side with the Synoptics, side with John, or invent endless theories as to why the are actually in agreement.

No vending machine, if Christian prayer is eschatological & ordered to the presence of the Reign of God. The "Our Father" is how to pray, and is eschatological (St Matthew 6.9.-13), so these other prayers are presumably eschatological too.

A frivolous undertaking - about as sensible as trying to estimate the physics of the Ascension.

Appropriate, because folklore-like.

"Benedict, in the volume of Jesus of Nazareth that deals with Holy Week, concludes (based on the work of John P. Meier) that John is right—the Last Supper was not a Passover meal—and the Synoptics are wrong."

## That is not easily reconciled with the statement in the 1998 Ratzinger "Note" that the Bible is totally inerrant:

5. The first paragraph states: "With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the Word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed." The object taught in this paragraph is constituted by all those doctrines of divine and catholic faith which the Church proposes as divinely and formally revealed and, as such, as irreformable.11

8. With regard to the nature of the assent owed to the truths set forth by the Church as divinely revealed (those of the first paragraph) or to be held definitively (those of the second paragraph), it is important to emphasize that there is no difference with respect to the full and irrevocable character of the assent which is owed to these teachings. The difference concerns the supernatural virtue of faith: in the case of truths of the first paragraph, the assent is based directly on faith in the authority of the Word of God (doctrines de fide credenda);...

11. Examples. Without any intention of completeness or exhaustiveness, some examples of doctrines relative to the three paragraphs described above can be recalled.

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...

https://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM

## If it is heretical to say there is "error in the inspired writings", & Ratzinger is imputing error to them, it seems that Ratzinger is suspect of heresy.