Not ignorant to believe but perhaps as to what words can convey, but i provided the second option which she should have argued for if it was.
Surely nothing justifies the sleazy Protestant "highly favored".
They both simply use charitoō, and your opinion is just that, which also should make you even more opposed to the NABRE : "And coming to her, he said, “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you." Also here and here .
And the Jerusalem Bible : "He went in and said to her, 'Rejoice, you who enjoy God's favour! The Lord is with you.'" These are read far more than the Vulgate or the DRB.
In addition, an apologist with a bit more weight than you (Jimmy Akin states in response to a questioner:
I was watching EWTN earlier and it was mentioned that only two people in the New Testament are referred to as “full of grace” – Jesus (John 1:14) and Mary (Luke 1:28). Of course I thought this would be a really neat thing to mention to my Protestant friends (especially if we’re talking about Jesus and Mary being the New Adam and New Eve).
BUT I wanted to go beyond the English and examine the original Greek – but I don’t know a lot about Greek! So I have two twofold questions:
(1) does John 1:14 use kecharitomene as fully (pardon the pun) as Luke’s usage in 1:28 or does John 1:14 follow more closely to Acts 6:8 when Stephen is referred to as “full of grace and power”?
John 1:14 says that Jesus was plErEs charitos, which literally means "full of grace." (Those capital Es arepresent etas, so pronounce them like the e in "they"; the word is thus pronounced PLAY-RACE).
Luke 1:28 uses kecharitomene, which literally means "one who has been graced" or "woman who has been graced" (since the gender is female). It doesn't literally mean "full of grace," though that is defensible as a free translation.
Acts 6:8 refers to Stephen as plErEs charitos, so again it's literally "full of grace" and just the same as the description used of Jesus in John 1:14.
If it is the latter, (2) does that mean there really isn’t a literal “full of grace” parallel between Luke 1:28 and John 1:14 or can I find that literal parallel somewhere else in the New Testament?
Not that I'm aware of, and I'd almost certainly be aware of it if there were.
Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch Luke in the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible affirm "graced," and use it to justify their theological interpretation: The Gospel of Luke could have described her with the words full of grace (Gk. pleres charitos) as he did of Stephen in Acts 6:8, yet here he uses a different expression (Gk. kecharitomene) that is even more revealing than the traditional rendering. . It indicates that God has already "graced" Mary previous to this point, making her a vessel who "has been" and "is now" filled with divine life.- http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=11460004&postcount=3
And she was, but it is the excess extrapolative attributions that go far above and beyond what is written that is the issue.
when a doctor of the Church speaks on matters of faith and morals, his words are inspired by God..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.
You also said in your next post,
The canonicity of scripture means that this is a material (1) directly related to the historical events surrounding Jesus Christ; (2) written by an apostle or a person equally connected to the person of Christ; (3) is inerrant; (4) was used in the Holy Liturgy of the Early Church.
Thus I see no distinction being made btwn the manner and level of Divine inspiration, but what sets them apart is its canoncity, content, authorship, inerrancy, use used in early Holy Liturgy, unless docs and prelates speaking on matters of faith and morals can be Divinely inspired and yet make errors.
What if any distinction do you see are regards any type and level of Divine inspiration of Scripture, and doctors and prelates of the church of Rome? And can you specify who some of these are if not popes, and the works you hold as being Divinely inspired (and thus binding i would assume)?
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.
But all you state is a functional difference, not any theological distinction btwn any type and level of Divine inspiration of Scripture and infallible statements, while the claimed charism of infallibility precludes errors.
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:
I was aware of what Providentissimus Deus states, which is why i asked, and thus in essence you were and making no real distinction btwn the Divine inspiration of Scripture and doctors, prelates (popes or including them) in speaking on faith and morals.
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.
Hardly. The very requirement of obedience to that which is formulated as definitive makes a definitive list of what is definitive useful to say the least. Some way all encyclicals are infallible, others say no; some think Humanae Vitae is infallible, while the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops rejected it; some think some arguments behind infallible statements are infallible, while being uncertain the level of other magisterial teachings, and wonder what constitute "official teaching on many issues.
You exhibit the typical Protestant legalistic thinking that confuses the Holy Church with a police station.
Oh? It is RCs who present Rome as the police station and judge that solves the problem of interpretation, according as they interpret Scripture and Rome.
Right. The point remains that "full of grace" is the historical translation offered by Jerome and it is correct. Other paraphrases, such as even simply "graced" are possible. To substitute "favor" for grace in this context is not acceptable, -- no translator, even among the Protestant sleazebags, would use "favor" anywhere in St. Paul's writings, so why use it here? It is sheer mariophobia, even when a "catholic" translation does it. We also had "catholic" priests running after pubescent boys not long ago.
what sets them apart is its canoncity
Correct, and as I explained, what the canonicity implies.
What if any distinction do you see are regards any type and level of Divine inspiration of Scripture, and doctors and prelates of the church of Rome?
The distinction between canonical scripture and other writings is the canonicity of the former. Between various figures of authority in the Church, it is case by case and opinions may vary. But generally, those who were sainted, those who came earlier, those who have been named doctors, popes, -- have precedence. Certainly if any teaching of an authority has been condemned, the entire authority suffers to an extent. So, for example, Origen is extremely important as one who was so instrumental in sorting out the issues of canonicity of the New Testament books; but at the same time he was never glorified as saint and taught something that was possibly touched with universalist heresy. Aquinas, albeit from scholastic period, is held in very high regard due to the encyclopedic nature of his insights, even though some of his opinions are not shared by the Church Catholic. There is no hard and fast rule. Thank God, we are not Protestants with their idiotic legalisms.
charism of infallibility precludes errors
Yes; this is why the pope can act in absence of a consensus, like I said.
you were and making no real distinction btwn the Divine inspiration of Scripture and doctors, prelates (popes or including them) in speaking on faith and morals.
I told you what the distinction is. If you are sensing that to the Catholic mind the Holy Scripture is inseparable from the entire body of the magisterial teaching of the Holy Church, you are correct. This is why reading the scripture while denying the authority of the Church in the interpretation of the scripture is waste of time, and may end up wasting souls.
wonder what constitute "official teaching on many issues
Yes, and that is good. The Church wants us to examine the doctrine, weigh it against others and come to the understanding through our own effort so that the doctrine becomes internalized.
Rome as the police station
Not the Rome I know, -- and you just stated the opposite yourself.