So read the relevant posts by Salvation again and observe the use of "original" in her post applied not only to Latin but also to English.
Wycliffe's is a garbage translation.
No one is called in the New Testament "κεχαριτωμενη" nor "κεχαριτωμενος". St. Stephen is "πληρης πιστεως". Jesus is "πληρης χαριτος". Difference in the original calls for difference in translations.
you are supporting Gregory as one (among others) that wrote under Divine inspiration as with the writers of Scripture.
Yes, however his texts are not canonical scripture.
Do you hold that Popes in speaking infallibly also do so [when inspired by the Holy Ghost?]
When a pope is speaking on faith and morals from the authority of the Petrine office, yes. When he chats with the reporters, for example, no. You did not know that?
variously interpreting Rome among themselves
Yes. Happens. But we know where the authority is and the Church being of living people we can ask for a definitive teaching. That is unlike Protestant charlatanism and "the Spirit tells me". If that insults you, change religion.
Which (Latin) is only contextually relevant if she believes Latin is the original language Lk, 1:28 was penned in, or definitive of what the Greek states, as what Lk, 1:28 states was the issue, but she gave no reason for invoking the "original Latin," thus my response opposing both possibilities.
Wycliffe's is a garbage translation.
And translates Lk. 1:28 as per the Vulgate. But regardless of your opinion, it is held as being the first English translation of the Bible, which had two versions, one more literal and the other more coherent, and others write that it contained no heterodox readings, and thus many Catholic commentators of the 15th and 16th centuries (such as Thomas More) took these manuscript English bibles to represent an anonymous earlier orthodox translation. But this is a side subject.
No one is called in the New Testament "κεχαριτωμενη" nor "κεχαριτωμενος".
Lk. 1:28 and Eph. 1:6 both have believers as being "charitoō" = "graced." Mary was indeed.
you are supporting Gregory as one (among others) that wrote under Divine inspiration as with the writers of Scripture.
Yes, however his texts are not canonical scripture.
Once again you are failing to address the difference.
Do you hold that Popes in speaking infallibly also do so [when inspired by the Holy Ghost?]
When a pope is speaking on faith and morals from the authority of the Petrine office, yes. When he chats with the reporters, for example, no. You did not know that?
Why are you acting insolently? You really think i distinctly said "Popes in speaking infallibly" because i think they do so always? But you add "when inspired by the Holy Ghost?" to my words when that is the issue.
Rather than avoid this, and answering my questions, tell us how Gregory and popes speaking infallibly (and i understand the criteria for such) are inspired by the Holy Ghost, so that God is the author of these infallible statements, if He is, and how this "dictation" is different from the Divine inspiration of Scripture.
For what is sufficiently clear is that you were objecting to what you called my opinions that nothing else that the prelates and doctors of the Holy Church wrote [besides Scripture] is inspired, or that specifically what they wrote in Latin is not inspired, which opinions you said was not the faith of the church. And in support of this inspiration of prelates and doctors you presented Gregory "writing as the Holy Spirit dictates to him," which is how Divine inspiration of Scripture is described in Roman Catholicism (if not mechanically).
variously interpreting Rome among themselves
Yes. Happens. But we know where the authority is and the Church being of living people we can ask for a definitive teaching.
Really? It seems the line is busy, as you do not even have a list of all infallible teachings (all encyclicals, all Bulls, etc.) or of what level each one falls under, and thus what degree of assent is required, and what, if any, dissent is allowed, let alone all what all these mean. Who will give you a clear definitive teaching that precludes interpretation?
Lacking such, site such as Catholic Answer abounds with questions and opinions about such, while Traditional Catholics make a good case of modern teaching contradicting previous official teaching, while I have RCs here denying standard Catholic works that I provide based on their own unsubstantiated opinions.
That is unlike Protestant charlatanism and "the Spirit tells me".
Which problem is simply taken to an institutional level with elitists sola ecclesia groups claiming they uniquely are led by the Spirit and possess assured veracity, and as if one cannot have assurance of Truth, and know what is of God without such, versus the magisterium being instrumental but not assuredly infallible, and Truth claims being established upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation.
Meanwhile, what Rome really believes is what she manifests by what she does (or fails to do) and effects, (Ja. 2:18; Mt. 7:16) and which is that of fostering an overall liberal majority whom she treat as members in life and in death, who are far less unified in basic beliefs than those who most strongly hold to Scripture literally being the word of God - even without a centralized universal magisterium. But which is getting off the main subject here.
So?
A Model T is garbage compared to a Taurus as well.