Which is both a false translation - for kecharitomene means "one who has been graced," not filled with grace due to perfect personal virtue - and a false dilemma, that either Mary could be highly graces or a sinner, versus both being the case, as it is with Stephen, "full of faith and of the Holy Ghost.... full of faith and power, And all that sat in the council, looking stedfastly on him, saw his face as it had been the face of an angel. (Acts 6)
Being filled with God does not mean one is sinless and kecharitomene does not mean a perpetual past to present sinless state of grace. .
but the idea that the Bible proves Mary's sinfulness, is dubious, to say the least.
Rather, we do not need to prove the exception to the norm, and it is the idea that the Bible proves Mary's sinlessness that is dubious. Aside from Christ, there are only statements that state that all men are sinners and a basic principle in Scripture is that the exceptions to the norm by its characters are mentioned, from extreme age (Methuselah), to excess size, fingers (Goliath), strength (Samson), barrenness (Hannah), a celibate marriage (David and Abishag), prolonged celibacy (Anna), ascetic diet (John the Baptist), the supernatural transport of Phillip, the singleness of Paul and Barnabas, and uncharacteristic duplicity of Peter, and the surpassing labor and suffering of Paul, birth by a virgin (Mary), to Christ being sinless, which is mentioned at least thrice.
Thus the norm is to be assumed unless the exception is stated, and which never manifestly stated is concerning Mary, and do you really think the Spirit of Christ (thus Christ Himself) would leave you to having to labor to extrapolate her sinless state out of a word which does not state this, and is open to so much contention as to what it could convey?
Nor do we ever see Catholic devotion to Mary in the inspired record of the NT church (Acts onward, which is interpretive of the gospels), including any inference to her being sinless, despite the cardinal importance in Catholicism.
Neither (for your sake() was belief in the sinless state of Mary something that even had the unanimous consent of the (so-called) fathers.
She was preserved from sin
Here we have the typical recourse of Catholics when their specious arguments fail, which is to simply engage in argument by assertion, repeating what they must believe because their autocratic elitist church deems it to be true, in contrast to trusting the God whom Mary worshiped to make manifest binding beliefs.
the One whom she worshiped as "God, my Savior"--- her Savior and ours --- Who did great things for her.
And which was to bless her to bear the incarnate Son of God who created her, and to whom she owes everything to, and to whom she only prayed to in Heaven, unlike Catholics who use her name in vain, for their own traditions of men.
Thank you.