"κεχαριτωμενη", however is different than "πληρης χαριτως" or something, that would call for the simpler translation. It is used just one other time in the Holy Scripture:
Lo, is not a word better than a gift? but both are with a justified [κεχαριτωμενω] man (Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 18:17).
The context here is the state of final justification, "the reward of God [that] continueth for ever" (Ibid. 18:22), -- that is exactly the state of final, complete blessedness that Mary received with the Incarnation.
I agree that simply "graced" is technically possible but it removes the poetic alliteration present in the Lucan text.
χάρις as "favor" is the very word even the DRB uses in [several places in Acts]
But all your examples are when the context is not divine grace, but indeed human favor: "favour with all the people", "favour and wisdom in the sight of Pharao", "favour against him" even. Search in St. Paul, -- every time he teaches about grace as a theological concept he uses "χάρις", of course, with proper inflections.
some of what doctors and prelates teach on faith and morals is just as inspired as Scripture and just as fully [...] infallible statements by doctors and prelates of the church are the wholly inspired revelation of God
Of course: we don't have two Holy Spirits, one for the doctors and prelates who wrote the New Testament and another for the rest.
Infallibility is not “on par” with divinely inspired Scripture.
Did I say it was? I said that the nature of inspiration is the same today as in 1 c. Infallibility is a smaller notion indeed: it is merely absence of error.
How many infallible statements would you even approx. say there are?
The entire teaching of the Holy Church, as expressed for example in the Catechism of the Church is infallible. Inspired, -- we don't really know as it is a stronger claim. Here is a good example: Leo XIII's Prayer to St. Michael. The Rosary prayers, for sure. Most of the insights in the Summa. On Incarnation of St. Athanasius. Often reading the fathers of the Church you see the presence of the Holy Spirit in them, certain super human quality.
Like this?
847 Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.
So they really don’t need Jesus?
Or like this?
CCC841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day.
Once again. They don’t need Jesus?
Infallible indeed! /s
Apostate is more like it.
Mainly because it’s taking the form of a verb rather than a noun. Otherwise it’s the same basic idea. That verbal form only occurs one other place that I am aware of:
Eph 1:6 εις επαινον δοξης της χαριτος αυτου εν η εχαριτωσεν ημας εν τω ηγαπημενω
Which the KJV renders as:
“To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.”
So it’s the same verb (χαριτόω) and the same tense (aorist) as its companion in Luke 1:28, and could easily be rendered thus:
“To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us highly favored (or ‘graced’) in the beloved.”
While not formally in the perfect like Luke 1:28, it is aorist and therefore perfective, i.e., describing a state of completion. An event occurred, and it was a complete, simple, undivided event. The only reason to add the perfect is to suggest the past completed act has some present relevance. In Mary’s case, for example, having come to be favored in the past is relevant as explanatory of the angelic visit in the present.
(BTW, if this seems different than my first explanation of the perfect, it is. It’s been a few years, and in preparing this post I realized I hadn’t stated the nature of the perfect correctly in my earlier post. It is temporal, yes, but it is the aorist that really provides the completeness of the event; the perfect is mainly there to project the event’s relevance into the present context, such as the conversation between Gabriel and Mary.)
So here’s the consequence of all this. If Mary’s “graced” equals sinlessness from birth, then the same must be said of all believers, because the same verb and tense is used, inflected differently, yes, but only to account for the different subjects, Mary versus all believers. Now it is patently absurd to posit that all believers have been sinless from birth because of being “graced.” So it is equally untenable that the same word should have a different meaning for Mary.
I agree that simply "graced" is technically possible but it removes the poetic alliteration present in the Lucan text.
Color me dense, but how can this be? Alliteration is a technique of using similar sounds in poetic form to create pleasing auditory patterns. How can an English translation choice possibly affect Luke’s Greek alliterations? No one is suggesting changing the Greek, only understanding it differently. What am I missing here?
But all your examples are when the context is not divine grace, but indeed human favor
Luk 1:30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
Luk 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.
Act 7:46 [David] Who found favour before God, and desired to find a tabernacle for the God of Jacob.
The above are all divine favor, and they are all based on the same root χαρις. And David we know was not sinless.
So the case for special pleading fails, and any effort to prove sinlessness in Mary must look elsewhere. Luke 1:28 will not provide it.
It is what this all means that is the real issue.
Of course: we don't have two Holy Spirits, one for the doctors and prelates who wrote the New Testament and another for the rest.
But you not only have the Holy Spirit aiding doctors and prelates teaching on faith and morals, but making such inspired just like Scripture is.
>Infallibility is not “on par” with divinely inspired Scripture.
Did I say it was? I said that the nature of inspiration is the same today as in 1 c. Infallibility is a smaller notion indeed: it is merely absence of error.
Well yes, since your objection , in the context of what was written as inspired Scripture, was that that prelates and doctors of the Holy Church wrote inspired teaching (which you failed to gave an example of).
And you went on to affirm "when a doctor of the Church speaks on matters of faith and morals, his words are inspired by God," and that "in the inspiration part there is no difference" btwn a doctor or prelate speaking on matters of faith and morals and that of Scripture, for if the former is "wholly infallible obviously it is wholly inspired by God." Thus that which is infallible is God-breathed as Scripture is,
But your making infallible teaching as being inspired of God is contrary to the theological teaching that defines that infallibility "merely implies exemption from liability to error," "not that either the pope or the Fathers of the Council are inspired as were the writers of the Bible," in "which the human agent is not merely preserved from liability to error but is so guided and controlled that what he says or writes is truly the word of God, that God Himself is the principal author of the inspired utterance." "God is not the author of a merely infallible, as He is of an inspired, utterance; the former remains a merely human document." - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
Are you now telling me that infallibility is merely absence of error, not inspired of God as Scripture is, though the later is different due to "its historical value of the canonical New Testament as direct witness to Christ?"
How many infallible statements would you even approx. say there are?
The entire teaching of the Holy Church, as expressed for example in the Catechism of the Church is infallible. Inspired, -- we don't really know as it is a stronger claim. Here is a good example: Leo XIII's Prayer to St. Michael. The Rosary prayers, for sure. Most of the insights in the Summa. On Incarnation of St. Athanasius. Often reading the fathers of the Church you see the presence of the Holy Spirit in them, certain super human quality.
Finally some examples, but you already said such as inspired, and to deny that was contrary to the faith of the church. Where are you getting this idea that all the teaching that is expressed in the Catechism of the Church is infallible and thus divinely inspired, and such things as Leo XIII's Prayer to St. Michael. or most of the insights in the Summa?
The CE and other sources do not even make infallible papal teaching Divinely inspired, but protected, while others also hold that the teachings of the catechism are not all infallible, but only those that were est. as being so before it.
While being overall a "sure norm," Cardinal Ratzinger in his 'Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church" states, "The individual doctrine which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess. ( p. 27). Men as Akin thus states that "one must look to other documents and to the tradition of the Church to establish the doctrinal weight of any particular point in the Catechism." - http://jimmyakin.com/2005/02/ratzinger_on_th.html"
(And RCs also say the 1994 Catechism originally defined a lie as, "To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who has the right to know the truth." (2483) http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php?topic=728840.0)
Your description also seems to blur the distinctions made btwn different magisterial levels of teaching and assent relative to such.
And esp. in the case of the such things as most of the insights in the Summa, who decides which one's are infallible versus not? Canon law 749§3 states: No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident. (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P2H.HTM) And thus "only the decisions of ecumenical councils and the ex cathedra teaching of the pope have been treated as strictly definitive in the canonical sense," which works against the broad inclusion you example.
But thus it is evident that what is "manifestly evident" is a matter of interpretation, and thus there is disagreement about what is infallible (again, some say all encyclicals [and perhaps Bulls or Fidei Depositum] are, others not). Of what use is infallibility if it is uncertain about what is? If the infallible trumpet sounds an uncertain sound, who shall prepare themselves to battle any allowance of dissent?