John F. McCarthy, a Catholic priest and conservative New Testament scholar, provided the following pre-Vatican II sources affirming the historical Catholic acceptance to the inerrancy of the autographs. I think some LDS and non-LDS readers will appreciate it, showing that inerrancy of the autographs is not unique to our more conservative Protestant friends and critics:
2. Divine Inspiration of the Scriptures are expressed in the authentic teaching of the Church.
2A. The Council of Trent: “The sacred and holy ecumenical and general Synod of Trent . . . clearly perceiving that [the aforementioned saving] truth and moral standards are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions which have been received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the apostles themselves under the dictation of the Holy Spirit, have come down to us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand, following the examples of the fathers of the true faith, receives and venerates with equal devotion and reverence all of the books both of the Old and of the New Testaments, since God is the author of both, and also the tradition themselves, those that appertain both to faith and to morals, as having been dictated either by Christ’s own word of mouth, or by the Holy Spirit, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession (EB 57).
2B. The First Vatican Council (1870): “But the Church holds these books as sacred and canonical, not because, having been put together by human industry alone, they were then approved by her authority; not precisely because they contain revelation without error; but on account of this that, having been written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and, as such, they have been handed down to the Church herself. Can. 4: I anyone shall not have accepted the entire books of Sacred Scripture with all their parts, just as the sacred Synod of Trent has enumerated them, as canonical and sacred, or shall have denied that they have been divinely inspired: let him be anathema (EB 77, 79).”
2C. Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus (1893): “For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being possible that any error can coexist with divine inspiration that of itself it not only excludes all error, but also excludes and rejects it as necessarily as it is necessary that God, the supreme Truth, cannot be the author of any error whatsoever. This is the ancient and constant faith of the Church, defined by solemn judgment in the Councils of Florence and Trent, and finally and more expressly formulated by the [First] Vatican Council (EB 124-125).”
“Hence it makes no difference at all that it was men whom the Holy Spirit took up as his instruments for writing, as though something false could have gotten away, not, indeed, form the primary author, but from the inspired writers. For, by supernatural power, He so moved and impelled them to write—He so assisted them when writing—that all of the thing which He ordered, and these only, they first rightly understood, then willed faithfully to write down, and finally expressed aptly and with infallible truth. Otherwise, He would not be the author of all Sacred Scripture. Such has always been the persuasion of the Fathers (EB 125).”
2D. Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Letter Divino afflante Spiritu (1943): “ . . . (that the Catholic commentator) not only may refute the objections of the adversaries, but also may attempt to find a solid solution which will be in full accord with the doctrine of the Church, in particular with the traditional teaching regarding the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture, and which will at the same time satisfy the certain conclusion of the profane sciences (EB 564).”
2E. Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Letter, Humani generis (1950): “For some audaciously pervert the sense of the [First] Vatican Council’s definition that God is the author of the Holy Scripture, and they put forward again the opinion, already several times condemned, according to which the immunity from errors of Sacred writ extends not to those things which are conveyed concerning God and moral and religious matters. They even wrongly speak of a human meaning of the Sacred Books, beneath which lies hidden a divine meaning, which they declare to be the only infallible meaning. In interpreting Sacred Scripture, they will take no account of the analogy of faith and the ‘tradition’ of the Church. Thus they judge that the teaching of the Fathers and of the sacred Magisterium is to be put back on the scale of Sacred Scripture, as explained by the purely human reasoning of exegetes, instead of expounding Holy Scripture according to the mind of the Church which Christ our Lord has set up as guardian and interpreter of the whole deposit of divinely revealed truth . . . There is no one who should not see how foreign all this is to be principles and norms of interpretation rightly fixed by our Predecessors of happy memory, Leo XIII in his encyclical Providentissimus, and Benedict XV in the encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus, and also by our Selves in the encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu (EB 612-613).” (John F. McCarthy, Catholic Biblical Scholarship for the Third Millennium [Fitzwilliam, N.H.: Loreto Publications, 2017], 211-13)
