When it’s done by non-Catholic Christians (as in this case, the folks at CARM), it’s typically meant as a jab against the Catholic Marian dogma.
Here’s the way the folks at CARM are doing it: they’re trying to convince you that Marian dogma proceeds solely from the Latin translation plena gratia – ‘full of grace’. (It’s not, by the way!) But, if you buy into that foolishness, then they’re going to try to show you that the literal phrase ‘full of grace’ is a poor translation that can’t be used to justify Catholic Marian dogma.
Here’s the problem, though: first, the dogmatic statements quote the phrase ‘full of grace’, but don’t depend on it solely. Second, the phrase itself is simply a translation of the Greek participle kecharitomene. But, what they do is to take the Latin phrase ‘full of grace’ and translate it back into Greek as ‘plērēs charitos’, and attempt to show that plērēs charitos cannot be used to support Marian dogma.
Can you see how weird an approach that is? Let’s diagram it out:
(Greek) kecharitomene --> (Latin) plena gratia --> (Greek) plērēs charitos
See what I mean? If they want to attack Marian dogma using Greek, then they need to address the literal text of the Greek Scriptures (kecharitomene), not their own personal back-translation (plērēs charitos).
Specifically, what they’re trying to do is show that the phrase plērēs charitos doesn’t apply to Mary, and even if it did, it wouldn’t imply Mary’s Immaculate Conception or sinlessness.
It’s a pretty weak attempt. But, if you look at it uncritically, and if you aren’t familiar with the Greek and Latin, and if you don’t know the basis for Catholic Marian dogma… well, it would be easy to fool you with their twisted logic. :sad_yes: