No, he does not. You are obviously not reading my posts. I have no problem, nor do any scholars with the meaning "favoured with grace". That is NOT the issue. The issue is the Catholic position of "full of grace". No where in that passage or word can "full of grace" be found. The Greek word kecharitōmenē has NO connotation of "full" within it. A direct translation could be "you favored with grace" because of the vocative case simply meaning that it was Mary who was "favoured with Grace".
There is a specific Greek word for full which is plērēs. It is used when speaking of Stephen here;
Acts 6:8 Now Stephen, a man full (plērēs) of God's grace and power, performed great wonders and signs among the people.
It is NEVER used of Mary when speaking of grace like it does for Stephen. The only other time it is used when referencing grace is with Jesus.
John 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full (plērēs) of grace and truth.
The phrase "full of grace" used by Jerome in the Latin Vulgate which the Catholic Church uses for it's translations is a corruption of the original Greek. In fact, the phrase "blessed art thou among women" is not found in the older Greek manuscripts of Luke 1:28 which is the reason most translations now do not have it.
The Catholic "tradition" of "full of grace" is built on corrupted translations of the original Greek documents.
You just make undocumented statements that are not truthful.
Just accept that your dispute is your personal opinion.
Your statement that I haven’t read your post is not truthful, just your opinion.
Just like your opinions on Catholic teachings. They are just your opinions.
I will excerpt a summary from a book by a former atheist and Protestant Devin Rose: The Protestant’s Dilemma
Because Catholicism is true,
Christians can know divine revelation, as distinct from mere human opinion, because God protects it from authoritatively teaching anything that is false.
How is the Catholic’s judgment different from a Protestant’s, if at all? The difference lies in the conclusion, or finishing point, of the inquiry they make. Whereas the Protestant can ultimately submit only to his own judgment, which he knows to be fallible, the Catholic can confidently render total assent to the proclamations of the visible Church that Christ established and guides, submitting his judgments to its judgments as to Christ’s.
And so a Catholic can know divine revelation, as distinct from human opinion, by looking to the Church, which speaks with Christ’s voice and cannot lie. For a Protestant, only the Bible itself contains God’s infallibly inspired words, so he desires to assent to that. But since the Bible must be interpreted by someone, the closest he can come to assenting to biblical teaching is assenting to his own fallible interpretation of it. And assenting to yourself is no assent at all.
The Protestant’s Dilemma
If Protestantism is true, all are fallible. So the Protestant must rely on his own judgment above that of his church. And the orthodoxy of the church itself is judged against his interpretation of the Bible. Thus is becomes impossible to distinguish between what divine revelation actually is versus what a fallible human being thinks it is. This fact makes the Catholic Church, philosophically speaking, preferable to Protestantism, since God’s truth can be known—and known with certainty.