I’m not disputing that Mary wasn’t filled with grace; that is clearly expressed in the Bible. That is not in question.
What I am disputing that being filled with grace implies that one is sinless. We have the example of Stephen being filled with grace, but he was not without sin.
You might also read this:
http://www.ichthys.com/mail-Mary-full-of-grace.html
A taste:
” The idea that one can read into this word meaning “object of grace/favor” any degree of sinlessness or perfection on the basis of a “perfect” verb form indicates a complete misunderstanding of what “perfect” means in grammatical terms. In verbs, it only means “completed action”; not sinlessness! To go back to the discussion in point 4 above, if the present is a line with an arrow and the aorist is an “x”, then the perfect would be a line with an “x” at the end, that is, action begun in the past and now complete. The action doesn’t have to have begun in eternity nor does the completion of the action impart perfection of any sort on the object. In our case all it would mean is that Mary had received favor from God in the past and was still in His good-graces.”
Also, the perfect past participle is used, I believe, in the preceding verse in Luke (1.27): “...to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph...”
So apparently, if one reads perfect past participles the way Catholics do in verse 28, then in verse 27, Mary perfectly pledged to stay pledged forever to be married, but not to marry. Kind of like always winter, never Christmas.