Was Mary full of grace?

I saw this video about this one translator who said that the Bible’s original text said Mary was not “full of grace.”

Here is the video

youtube.com/watch?v=cJszC-NZQOg

How would you refute this?

forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=822698

Also search the forums for “kecharitomene”

It’s wrong from the beginning, saying that “for centuries, it had somehow been believed that
Mary was in charge of the Grace of God.” From there, the very beginning, we can conclude
that the maker of the video is simply a heretic.

I went and translated also three different sources for the Greek Luke 1:28, and found
that it really is “Full of Grace,” the only reason why anyone would say differently in a
video like this is because they are anti-Catholic.

Go find for yourself Greek translations of Luke 1:28, translate it to English, and you
will find that Mary is Full of Grace. She certainly wasn’t full of sin, lest Jesus be full
of sin. The reason why not all Christians like that is because they feel that Mary is
being given too high a status, feel it makes her too God-like.

Don’t listen to heretics.

Dave Armstrong has a great exegesis of Luke 1:28 here:
socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/04/straightforward-biblical-argument-for.html?m=1

Here’s an excerpt:

"The great Baptist Greek scholar A.T. Robertson exhibits a Protestant perspective, but is objective and fair-minded, in commenting on this verse as follows:

‘“Highly favoured” (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of charitoo and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians. 1:6, . . . The Vulgate gratiae plena is right, if it means “full of grace which thou hast received”; wrong, if it means “full of grace which thou hast to bestow” (Plummer).’ (Robertson, II, 13)

Kecharitomene has to do with God’s grace, as it is derived from the Greek root, charis (literally, ‘grace’). Greek scholar Marvin R. Vincent noted that even Wycliffe and Tyndale (no enthusiastic supporters of the Catholic Church) both rendered kecharitomene in Luke 1:28 as ‘full of grace’ and that the literal meaning was ‘endued with grace’ (Word Studies in the New Testament, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1946, four volumes, from 1887 edition: New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; Vol. I, 259).

Likewise, well-known Protestant linguist W.E. Vine, defines it as ‘to endue with Divine favour or grace’ (An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Co., four volumes-in-one edition, 1940, Vol. II, 171).

All these men (except Wycliffe, who probably would have been, had he lived in the 16th century or after it) are Protestants, and so cannot be accused of Catholic translation bias.

Of course, Catholics agree that Mary has received grace. This is assumed in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception: it was a grace from God which could not possibly have had anything to do with Mary’s personal merit, since it was granted by God at the moment of her conception, to preserve her from original sin (as appropriate for the one who would bear God Incarnate in her very body)."

To refute this would be very simple… just ask this question “Do you believe that Mary gave birth to Jesus?”…Followed by “Do you believe that Jesus is God?”… Followed by “Do you believe that Jesus is the Grace of God?” …The Church teaches that the answer to all three questions is a resounding yes.

Usually, the “full of grace” of Luke 1:28 is understood as to be referring to the Immaculate Conception, not Mary’s Motherhood of God.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.