Really? I don't know what the official answer is in academic logical thought, but I would have guessed that the opposite of "all are X" is "all are not X". I could be wrong, but am curious as to the answer. Any refs out there who can help? :)
The plain reading of Romans 3 does not allow for the interpretation that all without a single exception have sinned, because then you will have to ignore the rest of the book of Psalms that St. Paul is quoting, which speaks of righteous people.
No, that doesn't work at all. A person being called "righteous" in the OT does not at all mean he was sinless. Here is one example:
1 Kings 3:6 : Solomon answered, "You have shown great kindness to your servant, my father David , because he was faithful to you and righteous and upright in heart. You have continued this great kindness to him and have given him a son to sit on his throne this very day.
We all know whether David was a sinner. The "righteous" label in the OT was used to describe how the person was seen by other men, in that community. Job is another example.
Further, if Romans 3 is to be taken as an absolute rather than a generalized statement, then you -- for example -- do not seek God (Rom 3:11) and the Holy Innocents that Herod slaughtered were themselves murderers whose feet were "quick to shed blood" (Rom 3:15).
Rom. 3:11 and 15 ARE absolutes, referring to ALL lost persons. Paul recognizes that we all are alike under sin (verse 9). This matches verse 23 since we are all born as lost and in need of a savior. This is perfectly consistent. I certainly did not seek God first. Once God has freed us, however, then we DO seek God as believers.
Other scripture tells us to obey the apostolic tradition as well (2 Tess. 2:14). We do. You don't.
No where does that passage say or imply that extra-scriptural tradition is being referred to. The "traditions" which were taught by word means the OT. The epistles refers to the NT.
All are righteous in God’s eyes when we have Jesus in our lives. HE is our righteousness. It’s not our behaviour but the indwelling Christ that makes us righteous.
We are both right, because "opposite" sometimes means "negation" and sometimes means "diametrically opposite". Negation of "all are X" is "not all are X", which is "some are not X". For example, to controvert the statement "all elephants are white" I have to show just one elephant of another color. Diametric opposite of "all are X" is indeed like you say.
None of your examples has any reasonable connection to sinlessness
It does. Perfection, fullness of grace, readiness for heaven all definitionally mean absence of sin. If you disagree here, you don't understand either what sin is, or what grace is, or what heaven is, or any two, or all three (careful Boolean logic here).
1 John 1:8-10 : 8 If we claim to be without sin
This teaches not to presume sinlessness for example, in order to avoid confession. We don't know what Mary presumed and confessed.
would you care to name all of those you believe were sinless like Mary?
The Bible only mentions Noah, but one can easily believe that John the Baptist was without actual sin, Abel, and of course countless infants who did not live ling enough to sin, of which the Holy Innocents are one example. The Church only counts Mary dogmatically, because that is something we know from the Holy Tradition, that is, from the Church herself. One is free to believe in actual sinlessness of others, unless it is positively known that they sinned.
The "righteous" label in the OT was used to describe how the person was seen by other men
That is true, righteousness can mean "righteous with respect to one decision or act, but not altogether". Such is "faithful to you and righteous" in your example of David. The significance of the Psalms mentioning righteousness is in that in Rom 3 St. Paul quotes the Psalms, and the Psalms are contructed very much in contrasts of wickedness and righteousness, so that becomes part of the context in Rom 3. Further, Rom 3 also says that none is righteous, whatever the precise meaning you think it has.
we are all born as lost and in need of a savior. This is perfectly consistent. I certainly did not seek God first
Needing a savior is another matter; of course Mary was sinless because she had a Savior, the fount of all righteousness. Rom. 3 does not say "none seek God first", it simply says "none seeks God". It also says that all have feet quick to murder. Do you think that the Holy Innocents were quick to murder? Who was Mary quick to murder? If you equivocate here then you are doing the same thing you accuse me of doing, except I showed you concrete scripture and you gave me first shmirst.
writings totally outside of the actual context
Examples of people described as perfect or filled with grace are scriptural and are relevant to Rom 3. They are context. So is "feet quick to shed blood" and "none seeking God", which is immediate context. The context invalidates the absolute meaning of "all" you insert here.
thousands of Catholics who work miracles
I said "saints". In order to be a canonized saint there must be either martyrdom, or several miracles have to be worked by that person in heaven.
No where does that passage say or imply that extra-scriptural tradition is being referred to.
Sure it does, it mentions tradition and scripture separately. It cannot say "tradition" and refer to OT because OT is scripture.