From other scripture, if not from common sense we know that Jesus was without sin and did not fall short. Yet that verse if taken literally would contradict that. Further, Noah, for example, is mentioned in the scripture as man perfect in every way, and Mary is described as full of grace. We conclude that the intention of St. Paul in Romans was to describe the overwhelmingly true sad condition of man, while allowing for implied exceptions.
Christ is most definitely Mary’s Savior, and given her fullness of grace before the Annunciation, I don’t see what other conclusion one can reach but that Christ made her sinless and immaculately conceived.
This only makes sense in a world where we don't know what words mean, so we constantly redefine them to fit what we want them to mean. IOW, we start by defining what "is" is.
The statement "all have sinned" can now be read to mean "well most have sinned", but not all because we have some implied exceptions. It's silly and sloppy thinking. It only exists because you church painted itself into a corner with all its extra Scriptural beliefs.
Christ is most definitely Mary’s Savior, and given her fullness of grace before the Annunciation, I don’t see what other conclusion one can reach but that Christ made her sinless and immaculately conceived.
Why? The blessing was that God would use her. It says nothing of transforming her.