Well, we also know that Noah knew the effects of wine (Matt. 24:38) and yet became drunk (Gen. 9:20, et seq.), thus shaming himself. Therefore, "just and perfect" does not describe a lifelong state (as Quix aptly noted). Rather, it applies to how they were seen by other men. As far as anyone knew, some may have appeared as blameless as against other people, but no one is blameless before God. This is true of Noah, Job, Mary, and everyone else. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Besides, I doubt you are making a case that Mary's lifelong sinless club is joined by all the people you mention above. :) Or are you?
At Cana, Mary had seen no miracles, yet she asked for one.
Really? From birth to 30 years old, Mary had NEVER seen her son commit the slightest sin in all His life. You don't call that a noteworthy miracle? :) She certainly had "seen" miracle, but at that time it may not have been God's choice to let her SEE miracle. It is simply unknowable what the state of her faith was at Cana. But if we agree that Cana was before the centurion, then the text leads us to think that Mary's faith was not yet fully developed at Cana. Therefore, we cannot conclude that she asked for a miracle.
As to the literal "no one in Israel", we have to discount the immediate family, and especially Mary simply because she had a revelation from God the centurion or anyone else did not have. Her journey of faith had happened before anyone else even heard of Jesus.
That doesn't follow logically. How is there any connection between a special revelation to Mary and what Jesus said? Who among the listeners could have possibly understood the distinction? No one. It just doesn't follow. We also know that Mary's revelation was incomplete AT LEAST until Christ was 12, since she did not recognize Him as God. We are (arguably) not told when the same revelation that you and I have was made full in Mary. If any inference can be made from the text, it would have been after the scene with the centurion.
FK: "I do not take "his disciples believed in him" in the most literal sense."
And I do. I am aware that the faith of the disciples was tested severely and failed them at times, but this does not discount the fact that the first deposit of faith, however infirm, was seeded after the intercession of Mary. [at Cana] (emphasis added)
SO, when all the disciples dropped their entire lives to follow Christ BEFORE the wedding in Cana (end of John 1 vs. beg. of John 2), that counted for nothing in the faith department ("first deposit")? :) We see no presence or participation by Mary when Jesus gathered His disciples for the first time.
FK: "Mary didn't adopt John, it was the other way around."
John took Mary "to his own" ("home" is a Protestant obfuscation). But John is called her son, as well as Mary is called his mother, so the adoption was two-way. You adopt when you call someone a son, not when you figure out who lives where.
But who was responsible? Of course at that time it was unequivocal that the man was to take care of the woman. We are led in no other direction here. We know that John was a strong young man and Mary was pushing 50. We both presume Joseph is gone by this point, so the only answer is that Jesus was handing Mary over to John in order to take care of her. No shame on Mary, but also no grand pronouncement that Mary was now the mother of the Church. That would make Mary the person of power here, and the text just doesn't support that at all.
The Incarnation is dependent on Mary in a fundamental sense, plus there are other scriptures, Cana and the mutual adoption foremostly, that outline her role as intercessor.
This presumes that Mary could have somehow stopped the Incarnation as God had planned it, ostensibly by saying "No", or something. If that actually WAS possible, then I would venerate Mary every bit as much, probably more so, as you all do today. I would "owe" my salvation to her in great part because of her decision. Of course, I would have to share my gratitude with the Roman goddess "Fortuna", the goddess of luck. If Mary DID have the full power to thwart God's plan for the salvation of mankind in His elect, then it was very fortunate for us that she made the choice she did. I mean, the Bible is full of stories about humans going ANYWHERE with "yes" or "no" choices, even among the best, like Moses. He blew an easy one, and it cost him a lot. Thank Mary in Heaven and Fortuna that the same didn't happen to her. (?) :)
There is no sin in that; the only sin that the scripture mentionsi is of Cham.
I doubt you are making a case that Mary's lifelong sinless club is joined by all the people you mention above. :) Or are you?
I think that it would be reasonable to conclude that all who are described as perfect in the scripture were in fact perfect, or else the scripture would not describe them so. The Church does not hold any such belief dogmatically (the belief in the sinlessness of Mary is dogmatic), but in the realm of scriptural analysis, we would have to conclude that indeed Noah, John the Forerunner, and perhaps some others were indeed sinless.
we cannot conclude that she asked for a miracle
You speculate beyond scripture here, again. The response Christ gave her indicates that He understood her as requesting a miracle.
That doesn't follow logically, etc.
I don't know how else to explain it. When Jesus was found int he Temple, she did not have a full understanding, yet at Cana she requested a miracle, and both events precede the Centurion episode. The faith of the centurion is so impressive precisely because he only knows of Christ from others. He and Mary are the exact opposite in terms of how close they are to Christ, hence the comparision was not made to Mary but to others equally infamiliar with Him.
We see no presence or participation by Mary when Jesus gathered His disciples for the first time.
They followed Him, Yes, with some skepticism (John 1:46), but at Cana Christ "manifested His glory", St. John teaches us, and that was, he says, "the beginning of miracles", and done on Mary's request.
That would make Mary the person of power here, and the text just doesn't support that at all
The adoption is mutual "thy mother ... thy son". It could be that on the economic level John was taking care of Mary, but given the solemnity of the circumstance we Catholics see a deeper truth about discipleship and Mary told here. In Apocalypse 12 Mary is seen as the queen, thus certainly a person of power.
This presumes that Mary could have somehow stopped the Incarnation as God had planned it
God foresaw her response as He foresees all that He predestines, but on the other hand, God would not want to rape anyone, so yes, we have to conclude that she could have stopped the Incarnation if we believe in the goodness of God.