Not according to the Catholic church. From Catholic answers.com.... http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0510fr.asp
What are you talking about? The Word of God is Jesus. He is infallible. You guys are crazy to think that Catholics think that Jesus is fallible. We don't.
The interpretation of the word of God is infallible. That is the Catholic belief.
And a wrong one at that.
We wrote it, we harmonized it, we chose it and we interpret it. You gave all that up when you walked away from it.
Nor do Catholics have the original. They didn't write the Septuagint either. The Catholic Bible is a translation of a translation.
The Catholic Bible is in Greek with a translation into Latin and into Church Slavonic. There is no Catholic that claims differently.
So the very criticism you level against the *Protestant* Bible applies at least equally to your own. On one hand, you appeal to the fact that Protestants do not have the original manuscripts in your argument against Protestants use of Scripture. OTOH, Catholics appeal to that very same Scripture, which is no more certain, to support their most cherished doctrines.
We wrote it, we harmonized it, we chose it and we interpret it. Anything else is the province of fallible men, of whom you seem so enamoured that you walked away from the Church of Jesus Christ. It's hypocritical to demand to have it both ways. It's disingenuous to try to use Scripture from sources you demean and expect others to accept them as authoritative after trashing the sources.
I demean nothing. Individuals interpreting Scripture are invalid, according to Scripture.
Therefore, all the doctrines that the Catholic church appeals to Scripture for authority of, like the papacy, and apostolic succession, the institution of the priesthood, their ability to forgive sins, etc, are all built on unreliable documents (by your argument) and therefore are no more certain that that.
Without the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium, individuals interpreting Scripture are as the Eunuch; looking at words and understanding nothing. It is only by (rather poorly) imitating the Church that the Protestants actually have anything coherent at all. Look at the Pentecostals or the Branch Davidians as examples of individuals interpreting Scripture.
Stop repeating rot, Metmom
Fallible means able to make a mistake or able to teach error. Infallible means the opposite: the inability to make a mistake or to teach error.
When we use these words, we use them regarding an active agent—that is, we use them about someone making a decision that either may or may not be erroneous (in which case that someone is fallible) or that definitely cannot be erroneous (in which case that someone is infallible).
==========================================================
But a rock is never infallible. Nor is it fallible. It is neither because it makes no decision about anything. Ditto for a plant. No sunflower ever made the right decision—or the wrong decision. In fact, no sunflower ever made any decision, properly speaking.
The same can be said of a book. No book, not even the Bible, is capable of making a decision (on it's own).
This means it would be wrong to say that the Bible is either infallible or fallible—such terms should not be used about it or about any other book.
The proper term to use, when we are saying that the Bible contains no error, is inerrant. In its teaching, a particular book may contain truth or may contain error; most likely it will teach some of each. The one exception is the Bible. The Church teaches that everything the Bible asserts (properly understood, of course) is true and therefore without error.