Wrong. There simply is no "full" at all in the Greek. It was added to the text as part of the extraBiblical exaltation of the Mary-goddess of Catholicism.
no translator, even among the Protestant sleazebags, would use "favor" anywhere in St. Paul's writings, so why use it here
When proof is nonexistent, use slurs. Since charitoō only occurs once in all of Paul's writings then your omniscience must be presumed. Yet to be graced means you have found favor (charis: Lk. 1:30), and "full" is still not even in the Greek, and thus to say "full of grace" it is reading more into the text than what it says, even if the blessed, holy, Spirit-filled Mary was.
It is sheer mariophobia, even when a "catholic" translation does it.
In-credible. Even Catholics who do not agree with annalex are mariophobic, rather than possibly seeking to be faithful to the Greek. But as RCs as yourself are simply bound to defend Rome and her unBiblical Mary, then objective views are not expected, though scorn as a substitute is.
The distinction between canonical scripture and other writings is the canonicity of the former.
This does not answer the question of why these are canonical as regards any difference btwn Divine inspiration of Scripture and Holy Spirit inspired, "dictated" statements by doctors and prelates of the church.
There is no hard and fast rule. Thank God, we are not Protestants with their idiotic legalisms.
This is all it appears you can do in a jam. Your first reply already equated statements by doctors and prelates of the church as being Divinely inspired like Scripture. Now actually answer the questions asked as to any theological distinction btwn Divine inspiration of Scripture and statements by doctors and prelates of the church (see below)?
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.
"Inseparable" does not mean they are equally inspired of God. Scripture is that of the very words of God, being wholly inspired revelation of God, who is the principal author of it. Are you saying statements by doctors and prelates of the church also are the wholly inspired revelation of God, who is the principal author of it? And provide examples as asked. At least are all the writings your refer to all infallible? Are all infallible teachings inspired of God, if not wholly?
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.
That is just one more thing in which we see changes thru the years on among Catholic writings. You are certainly not to engage in objective examination of evidences in order to ascertain the veracity of RC official teaching, while implicit assent is what we see encouraged.
It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock, those who occupy a rank in the different degrees of the hierarchy and the multitude of the faithful. So distinct are these categories that with the pastoral body only rests the necessary right and authority for promoting the end of the society and directing all its members towards that end; the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors. - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X
"The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children to read or to listen to heretical controversy, or to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question. This places the Catholic in a position whereby he must stand aloof from all manner of doctrinal teaching other than that delivered by his Church through her accredited ministers." - John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals ,
“All that we do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else.” “Absolute, immediate, and unfaltering submission to the teaching of God's Church on matters of faith and morals-----this is what all must give..” —“Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means " ,
The church is infallible...the church, as a visible, organized society, is the immediate recipient of a certain divine revelation, and the medium of it transmission. .Each individual must receive the faith and the law from the church, of which he is a member by baptism, with unquestioning submission of the intellect and the will. Catholic world, Volume 13, by Paulist Fathers, p. 580
No, but the suffix "μενη", "μενος" indicates, in combination with the aorist, an action that has been completed on the subject.
since charitoō only occurs once
LOL. The word to look for is "χαρις", "grace" -- not first person present "I grace".
possibly seeking to be faithful to the Greek
There is nothing faithful here. "χαρις" means grace; "favor" is a kitchen term those mariophobic bastards would not use in any other theological context.
does not answer the question of why these are canonical as regards any difference btwn Divine inspiration of Scripture and Holy Spirit inspired, "dictated" statements by doctors and prelates of the church.
In the inspiration part there is no difference. The difference is in the historical value of the canonical New Testament as direct witness to Christ. I thought that was clear already.
"Inseparable" does not mean they are equally inspired of God. Scripture is that of the very words of God, being wholly inspired revelation of God, who is the principal author of it. Are you saying statements by doctors and prelates of the church also are the wholly inspired revelation of God
No, there is no such claim. When a theological work reflects the mind of the Church it is inspired by the holy Ghost in that part. There is not claim that the entire theological output of a doctor of a church (for example) is equally inspired. I gave you two examples, of Aquinas and Origen, -- did you read them or do you just enjoy repeating the same question four times hoping for a different answer?
Are all infallible teachings inspired of God, if not wholly?
If a teaching is wholly infallible obviously it is wholly inspired by God.
You are certainly not to engage in objective examination of evidences
Who said that? It is commendable to examine the Catholic Faith; it is in fact an obligation to at least make an effort.
the Church is essentially an unequal society
Correct. See 1 Corinthians 12:14-31. Good quotes, all these.