A blast from the past:
Dearest Father Ambrose,
Dear Marduk,
I am still intrigued by the unexpected appearance of the term "the Graces" repeated and repeated in your last couple of messages. I have never seen you use it before and am curious what is behind its sudden appearance.
Are you about to correct the Hail Mary to "Hail Mary, full of the Graces..."? 
Have the Latin translators made a mistake by using the singular?
When I use the term "Grace," I would use it in a number of different ways: Divine Energy, Divine action, the effect of a divine action, the Holy Spirit, or any benefit from God.
When I use the term "Graces," I would likewise use it in a number of different ways: Divine Energies, Divine actions, effects of a divine action, or benefits from God.
Whichever one you think fits according to the context of the phrase is probably what I was thinking of when I used the term.
Interestingly (well, to me anyway) if we take Grace to mean the Holy Spirit, it would fit perfectly with the phrase "full of Grace." It would mean, as Father Deacon Lance pointed out, that Mary was full of the Holy Spirit. As you already know, however, being full of the Holy Spirit does not mean being full of all the Graces that the Holy Spirit can give, according to St. Paul. The Holy Spirit gives Grace/Graces according to His purpose. As the quote from the Apostolic Constitution of the dogma of the IC (quoted by brother Isa) indicates, "Mary 'was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role.'" Mary did not receive the gifts/Graces of prophecy or leadership or healing or infallibility, etc. She received particular graces from the moment of her existence suited for her role to be the Mother of God for the specific purpose, as the Apostolic Constitution states, of enabling her to respond to the message of the angel in a positive manner.
Of course, Mardukm, like Pope Pius, begs the question that the IC is one of those "particular graces suited for her role to be the Mother of God for the specific purpose of enabling her to respond to the message of the angel in a positive manner." We have covered this before, e.g.:
Him, who knew no sin, He hath made sin for us, that we might be made the justice of God in Him. II Cor. 5:21. The Incarnation does not need the IC.
I don’t understand your interpretation of that passage as it relates to the IC. Are you saying that Jesus sinned?
God forbid! It just proves that the IC is an ingenious solution to a non-existent problem. All the protestations of horror that God would let His mother be subject to sin, even just original sin, for nought.
CCC 490 To become the mother of the Saviour, Mary "was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role."132 The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as "full of grace". In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God's grace.
491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God,134 was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:
The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin
493 The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God "the All-Holy" (Panagia), and celebrate her as "free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature" [by typical slight of hand, this is not a quote from "the Fathers of the Eastern tradition," but from the Latin "Lumen Gentium" 56]. By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.
"Let it be done to me according to your word. . ."
494 At the announcement that she would give birth to "the Son of the Most High" without knowing man, by the power of the Holy Spirit, Mary responded with the obedience of faith, certain that "with God nothing will be impossible": "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be [done] to me according to your word." Thus, giving her consent to God's word, Mary becomes the mother of Jesus. Espousing the divine will for salvation wholeheartedly, without a single sin to restrain her, she gave herself entirely to the person and to the work of her Son; she did so in order to serve the mystery of redemption with him and dependent on him, by God's grace:
Potuit, sed non decuit ergo non fecit.
Since He became sin for us, He had no need of a IC'd mother.
Mardukm, of course, claims that the East came up with the IC, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, and gives it his own singular spin:
What "western doctrines" are you talking about? The teaching of the IC was originally an Eastern teaching that the West gradually accepted. There is nothing about it particularly Western except the language of the dogma. But the teaching itself (not its dogmatic formulation) is primordially Eastern.
Put another way, which Eastern position are you accepting?
1) Mary received Graces only at her annunciation, and she was sinless beforehand by the use of her own free will. That is riddled with Pelagianism.
Don't you accuse us of semi-Pelagianism anyway?
2) Mary received Graces at her birth. This would be free of any taint of Pelagianism. The problem with this one is that there is NO patristic witness to Mary having an Immaculate birth.
The lack of patristic witness to her having an immaculate conception hasn't stop you.
3) Mary received Graces before her birth, but after her conception. This would be the most sensible non-Catholic position, since though there is NO direct patristic support for it, it can nevertheless be inferred from the patristic prooftexts used for the IC - namely, explicit statements by many Western and Eastern Fathers (mostly Eastern) that Mary was formed or created by God without stain. The only problem with this position is that a better one exists - i.e., the teaching of the IC (because Mary was formed by God from the first moment of her existence).
or better yet that she was full of the Holy Spirit like St. John was from the womb, and saving the only Immaculate Conception for that which occured on the Annunciation.
4) The teaching of the IC is acceptable but not necessary (i.e., the teaching should not be a dogma, but remain a theologoumenon). This position would actually not put you outside the pale of Catholicism, since the censure of the dogma is only against those who disbelieve it, not against those who believe it, but not as a dogma.
Your "infallible" pope disagrees:
We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful. Hence, if anyone shall dare -- which God forbid! -- to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he thinks in his heart.
Another example:
I will make one comment about the Greek often translated as "full of Grace." No Eastern or Oriental Catholic here (AFAIK) has ever claimed that the Greek term means "all divine graces." I certainly haven't. Not even the apostolic constitution you quoted makes that claim (i.e., though it uses the term "full of grace," nowhere does it claim that the term is equivalent to your exaggerated interpretation). So I don't know how you think your "all divine graces" argument has any validity. Your attempting a reductio ad absurdum argument, but the only thing shown to be absurd here is your credibility. 
which but requires a look at Ineffabilis Deus:
When the Fathers and writers of the Church meditated on the fact that the most Blessed Virgin was, in the name and by order of God himself, proclaimed full of grace by the Angel Gabriel when he announced her most sublime dignity of Mother of God, they thought that this singular and solemn salutation, never heard before, showed that the Mother of God is the seat of all divine graces and is adorned with all gifts of the Holy Spirit. To them Mary is an almost infinite treasury, an inexhaustible abyss of these gifts, to such an extent that she was never subject to the curse and was, together with her Son, the only partaker of perpetual benediction. Hence she was worthy to hear Elizabeth, inspired by the Holy Spirit, exclaim: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb."
But then I've already pointed this out:
As you pointed out, it is not proper to say "all Vatican documents are infallible." But I think your statement might mislead a few. It is not "documents" that are infallible, but teachings.
Just when we thought things couldn't be made more slippery....
As every Catholic knows (or should know), infallibility refers only to the specific teaching that is being defined. It does not apply to the preamble (the apostolic constitution) that accompanies the teaching.
That's nice. Now explain how, under Lumen Gentium, as Fr. Ambrose posted, that makes a difference.
Not every "Catholic knows" that it is not infallible, but according to Lumen Gentium, they should assent to it.
However, the apostolic consitution is indeed considered magisterial and authoritative. It's something non-Catholics (and probably a few Catholics) can't understand, so, as you can see here, they run around in circles in their arguments, because they seek to impose their non-Catholic perceptions on Catholic teaching.
An example here would be this issue of "full of grace" being brought up by brother Isa. He makes a big dieal about it being contained in an apostolic constitution, but he doesn't realize that the term "full of grace" here is not being defined, but rather being used somewhat in a colloquial manner, since "full of grace" is often the translation that people are used to.
Ineffibilis Deus is hardly a colloquial document: for one thing, there hasn't been colloquial Latin for quite some time.
Here's the Latin of the part I have repeatedly refered to, since you say "translation" is the problem.
Cum vero ipsi Patres, Ecclesiseque scriptores
animo menteque reputarent, Beatissimam Virginem ab angelo
Gabriele sublimissimam Dei Matris dignitatem ei nuntiante,
ipsius Dei nomine et jussu gratia plenam fuisse nuncupatam,
docuerant hac singulari solemnique salutatione nunquam alias
audita ostendi, Deiparam fiiisse omnium divinarum gratiarum
sedem, omnibusque Divini Spiritus charismatibus exoraatam, imo
eorumdem charismatum infinitum prope thesaurum, abyssumque
inexhaustam, adeo ut nunquam maledicto obnoxia, et una cum
Filio perpetuae benedictionis particeps ab Elisabeth Divino acta
Spiritu audire meraerit : Benedicta tu inter mulieres, et hener-
dictus fructus ventris tui.
i.e.
When the Fathers and writers of the Church meditated on the fact that the most Blessed Virgin was, in the name and by order of God himself, proclaimed full of grace[22] by the Angel Gabriel when he announced her most sublime dignity of Mother of God, they thought that this singular and solemn salutation, never heard before, showed that the Mother of God is the seat of all divine graces and is adorned with all gifts of the Holy Spirit. To them Mary is an almost infinite treasury, an inexhaustible abyss of these gifts, to such an extent that she was never subject to the curse and was, together with her Son, the only partaker of perpetual benediction. Hence she was worthy to hear Elizabeth, inspired by the Holy Spirit, exclaim: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb."[23]
Close enough at an attempt to define the phrase. That it fails, not withstanding scrutiny, doesn't change that.
and Mardukm "responded":
The idea of Mary being "full of grace," or being the "seat of divine graces" is a near-UNIVERSAL praise given to Mary by the Fathers. HOWEVER, we all understand that these are poetic and figurative terms. It's absurd to think that this is supposed to have a literal meaning. If it was taken literally, then it would mean that Mary had the Grace of the priesthood, which the Church has never taught. You yourself would understand the dramatically effusive praises of the Eastern Church in poetic, not literal terms. I think it would be unChristian (i.e., violates a lot of moral precepts taught us by our Lord) to assume the Latin Church, or the Catholic Church as a whole, would not likewise understand it in such a manner, if the only purpose is to disparage the Catholic Church.
I don't notice any misunderstanding on my part on this issue. Just accusations of "disparagement" when I have just quoted their words.
But I agree about the priesthood and the "all graces." Problem is, the "full of grace" argument depends on the "all graces."
