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.
Of course Salvation doesn't, -- no one is that ignorant. The relevance of Latin is that the English form, "full of grace" originates from Jerome's "gratia plena"; "κεχαριτωμενη" could indeed be translated by some other idiom related to the fullness, or possession, of grace as the Greek past participle does not have a direct grammatical parallel. St. Jerome found a simple way to translate it.
The point about Wycliffe's translation is that no Catholic would take it seriously, which explains why to Salvation and to most Catholics Douay is the first credible and professional English translation.
Eph 1:6
That would be "εχαριτωσεν", "graced", -- not the same neologism that St. Luke used to describe Mary. Obviously, derivatives of the word "χαρις" are plentiful, yet this particular one is unique. Surely nothing justifies the sleazy Protestant "highly favored".
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.
The Holy Catholic Church generally is under the leadership of the Holy Ghost, not just popes, -- but of course not every time a prelate of the Church says something. However, when a doctor of the Church speaks on matters of faith and morals, his words are inspired by God.
the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you (John 14:26).
What sets the Holy Scripture apart from other teaching of the Magisterium is not that the Holy Scripture is the only inspired text, but that it is canonized by the Church to be inerrant and relate directly to the historical events surrounding Christ.
Infallibility of the Pope is different from both inspiration and canonicity as it pertains to the Pope's authority to settle disputes even among the bishops when the consensus is lacking.
Finally, it is a useful idiom do say instead of "inspired", "dictated by the Holy Ghost", but I am only aware of the expression used ex cathedra in Providentissimus Deus:
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 GhostLeo XIII on the inerrancy of scripture (from Providentissimus Deus) [ecum.].
you do not even have a list of all infallible teachings
Of course not. This is akin to telling us when Christ will come again: not useful knowledge. Whether formally and canonically binding as dogma or not, any uttering of the Magisterium is to be met with serious attention, and if formulated as definitive, with obedience. You exhibit the typical Protestant legalistic thinking that confuses the Holy Church with a police station.
Rome really believes is
Ask, and you will learn.