Your reading of the text appears to have the specific agenda of showing that scripture leads us to believe Noah sinless, for the purpose of discrediting the Protestant reading of Romans 3. :) Your assessment of Noah's situation is most kind. How do you know what his intent was when he started drinking? Scripture doesn't give us his intent. Since Noah was responsible for negligence, for him to be innocent here one must believe that poor Noah was a most naive man, unaware of the effects of alcohol. I already showed scripture disproving that. Scripture does not show Noah to be a stupid man, which he would have had to have been to be innocent here. We are given no scripture showing Noah to be stupid. Therefore, you are not "go[ing] by the text".
And, I'll match your disclaimer with one of my own. I am not sure at all that the Bible details at least one sin for all of God's servants. That does NOTHING to discredit Romans 3. David was a righteous man, and while so he sinned. Romans 3 tells us a complete truth and is not contradicted anywhere, unless one changes the meaning of words. The Bible no where says that so-and-so was sinless. That is only specifically said about Christ, no one else. It is the Protestant reading here that "go[es] by the text".
FK: "That's it, no qualifiers. Mary is either part of "Israel" or she is not."
The qualifier is "such great faith". It points to the faith specific to the Centurion, that is faith without familiarity with the person of Jesus.
That is illogical. What tells you the comparison line is drawn based on whether one has familiarity with Jesus? Obviously scripture does not. By your reasoning it would be equally correct to argue that Jesus meant "of all the wart-faced, 250-pound brutes I've met, your faith is the best". There is simply NO REASON to draw the distinction you are making, from the scriptures. Jesus could have worded what He said in any one of a thousand ways to say what you are looking for. He didn't. He just said "in all Israel". This is not "go[ing] by the text". This is building into the text what isn't there in order to defend extra-scriptural Roman Catholic beliefs.
FK: "Why would none of you good Catholics choose to accept such grace [as Mary accepted]?"
It is of course the same grace; one of the reasons to pray to Mary is to learn from her how to accept divine grace given us.
If it is the same grace that is available to any of us, and if Mary is the only one to have ever accepted it, then I find it interesting that Mary used absolutely ZERO Roman Catholic extra-scriptural Tradition to make her choice. :) She didn't need it. Her knowledge was based on Sola Scriptura, in the sense that she knew nothing else, and that was apparently sufficient for her to accept more grace than any other human who has ever lived (outside Christ).
Plus, given that a reason to pray to Mary is to learn how to accept the grace she did, what does this say about Mary's intercession if more than a billion have been praying to her for 2,000 years and yet she still stands alone in the grace she accepted?
Romans 3 does not have the universality you ascribe to it, regardless of Noah: it is a quote from the Psalms (Jo Kus may be so kind as to remind us which), and the same Psalm goes on to speak of righteousness. There are more people than Noah similarly described. I simply show you that there is no sin in the Noah's episode by any objective measure. You can imagine something that is not in the scripture regarding Jesus as well and make him sinful by the same method. The only natural reading of the Noah's episode was that he drank because people need liquids and don't want dysentery, and that tired people get drunk and fall asleep without expecting it.
I am not sure at all that the Bible details at least one sin for all of God's servants.
This is neither here or there; Genesis 6:9 describes Noah as "a just and perfect man in his generations, he walked with God". Same situation as with Jesus as far as this particular issue is concerned; both are described as without sin, and both are not depicted ever sinning.
What tells you the comparison line is drawn based on whether one has familiarity with Jesus?
Because the Centurion stands apart on that basis only: the rest ask for hands-on healing, as they would a doctor; the centurion clearly has faith in the suparnaturality of Jesus' ability, not having met Him and not having witnessed Cana, walking on water, etc.
If it is the same grace that is available to any of us, and if Mary is the only one to have ever accepted it ... Her knowledge was based on Sola Scriptura
No, she is not the only one, but her task is unique. We accept the same ontological grace she did though. Was she going by the Hebrew Scripture? This is not how St. Luke tells it. It is a pious belief that she recognized Isaiah's prophecy in the Anunciation, but the scripture only tells us that she believed because the angel told her of the will of God.
and yet she still stands alone in the grace she accepted?
No, she doesn't; she is in that sense like any other saint.