Nor was Mary's faith blind, as she asked questions. Her faith was perfect for the revelation given her, and at the time it was quite limited. Note however that she is never shown as vain or infirm in her faith, and the apostles are shown in that way.
Remember, during Jesus' ministry the gentile centurion had greater faith than Mary
It is not shown as greater than Mary's faith. When she is not sure what child Jesus meant by His father's house, all she knows is a child to whom a great promise is attached. The centurion on the other hand sees a man working miracles. To compare the two, you need to look at Cana, where Mary is asking for a miracle even thpugh Jesus had not worked any at that time.
was the only possible way to solve it by miracle? I don't think so.
Maybe not, but it was certainly not a trivial problem. People made wine for themselves; they also depended on it in arid climate, as stored water goes bad. To ask a neighbor would mean that he would have to do without for a year, and it certainly would be an embarassment. However, I agree that the miracle seems to serve no important end, compared with healings, etc. Let us not forget that there were other miracles that were likewise not designed to solve a life and death problem. Why did Jesus walk on water? Why did He hide himself at Emmaus and only revealed himself in the breaking of the bread? Why did He feed five thousand when the apostles offered an everyday solution, to dismiss the crowd in time for them to get food by ordinary means? All these "unnecessary" miracles served a pedagogical purpose. Miracle at Cana signaled the beginning of His ministry, and shows us the connection of Mary with His Church.
if you say that Mary was asking for a miracle, so did tons of people throughout His ministry. Do they get this credit also?
Mary's unique connection was that the ministry of Christ started with her meek request: "This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee; and manifested his glory, and his disciples believed in him." (Jn 2:11), and it lead to the disciples believing. If you recall that she was also left adopting Christ's beloved disciple at the foot of the Cross, you see how His ministry on earth begins and ends with two themes: Mary and the Church.
This sounds like you believe that correct mariology is a part of central and core Christianity
I don't know how you define "core". I do think that the desire to minimize the role of Mary leaves the Protestants with an incomplete picture of Christ. For several reasons:
That is certainly true of some, but not all, of the Apostles. There are several Biblical figures, whose specific sin we are not told about.
FK: "Remember, during Jesus' ministry the gentile centurion had greater faith than Mary."
It is not shown as greater than Mary's faith. When she is not sure what child Jesus meant by His father's house, all she knows is a child to whom a great promise is attached. The centurion on the other hand sees a man working miracles. To compare the two, you need to look at Cana, where Mary is asking for a miracle even though Jesus had not worked any at that time.
OK, and when we make that comparison we see that the centurion was after Cana. If we presume that Mary was following Jesus around, then she must have seen all the miracles that there were to see already. The centurion couldn't have seen all that Mary saw. Yet, Jesus tells us specifically that the centurion's faith was greater than any He had seen in Israel. That includes Mary.
Mary's unique connection was that the ministry of Christ started with her meek request: "This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee; and manifested his glory, and his disciples believed in him." (Jn 2:11), and it lead to the disciples believing.
I do not take "his disciples believed in him" in the most literal sense, since I know how many of them blew it afterward. It was still less than the belief you or I have today, i.e. not true faith. Therefore, I cannot give Mary credit for kick-starting Jesus' ministry. Jesus was going to begin when it was correct for Jesus to begin according to God's perfect plan, not at the prodding by one of us.
If you recall that she was also left adopting Christ's beloved disciple at the foot of the Cross, you see how His ministry on earth begins and ends with two themes: Mary and the Church.
Actually, I don't recall that at all. :) Mary didn't adopt John, it was the other way around. Let's see it:
John 19:26-27 : 26 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, "Dear woman, here is your son," 27 and to the disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.
John was tasked with caring for Mary, which is fine. The honor here goes to John, not Mary. And once again, there is no shame at all on Mary for this fact.
I don't know how you define "core". I do think that the desire to minimize the role of Mary leaves the Protestants with an incomplete picture of Christ.
I define "core" as that knowledge which is necessary, but not sufficient, to believe and have faith in the correct God.
Mary is indispensable in understanding the Incarnation of the Word. The frequency of nestorian error popping up among the Protestant is a direct result of their fear of the implication of the Mother of God title. (emphasis added)
Why is that? You make Christ a dependent of Mary in the spiritual sense. That just isn't right. ...... Protestants have always acknowledged that Jesus is God, and that Mary gave birth to Him. If some have freaked out about that, it is on them, not us. Not the Protestants you deal with every day on this forum. It appears you are openly saying that to get to Christ one must go through Mary. Is there any wonder at all about Protestant criticism concerning your Mariology?
Mary and her spiritual children are against whom the calumnies of the Dragon are directed in Apocalypse 12. The ease with which Protestant groupings splinter and fracture betray an unconcern for unity, while Mary is the basis of such unity.
The "woman" in Revelation 12 is Israel, not Mary. And, it is betraying that you say Mary is the basis for your unity. I think of another name for the source of the agreement in faith I have with my Protestant brethren, and it ain't Luther or Calvin.
Mary gives us a model of discipleship different from the apostles. She is not shown converting anyone and left no scripture. But she is one who has no vanity and never betrays Him. She is, nevertheless, given us not only as a mother but also as a perfect disciple: "Blessed are these who keep and follow the Word of God".
I agree that Mary is a role model and we are not told of her sins, but that does not make her perfect and sinless. There are many Biblical actors whose sins we do not know. That doesn't make them sinless either. Mary was many wonderful and admirable things, but she was not perfect. INSTEAD, she was human.