Of course; that's why the Catholic Church teaches just that: we are as a general proposition all sinners. However, the scripture also contains descriptions of some men who are "just and perfect [...who walk] with God" (Gen 6:9), who are fit to enter heaven (4 Kings 2:11), who are "full of grace" (Luke 1:28). There are also as many references to righteous people in the Psalms as are to the wicked. We read those two, and conclude that the text you referenced allows for some exceptions.
None of your examples has any reasonable connection to sinlessness. And John trashes any such concept:
1 John 1:8-10 : 8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.
No, I'm afraid the Bible does not allow for any exceptions outside of Christ Himself. But if you want to go with it, would you care to name all of those you believe were sinless like Mary?
This is no longer a matter of plain reading. Once you decide to conclude something from absence of a scripture, the field is open to all kinds of speculation. After all, there is no reference to her sin either.
There is a mountain of evidence that ALL have sinned, and zero evidence that Mary was any exception to that. I base my conclusion on positive scripture, assuming Mary was human.
The thesis is, that plain reading of the scripture in context leads one to the Catholic Church ...
The problem with that is that what you would call "context" includes writings totally outside of the actual context. Any writing can mean absolutely anything within the "context" of some outside claimed authority. Beyond the very basics, Catholic theology (that theology which makes Catholic theology Catholic) is not generally found within the four corners of scripture.
Let me also add that indeed, much in Catholicism is not directly derived from the scripture, and some peripheral matters, such as, for example, celibacy of Latin priests, can be said to contradict some very natural interpretations of Titus 1:6.
That is why I am saying what I say above from a scriptural standpoint. And to be honest, the celibacy thing doesn't make me scream bloody murder, scripturally. I do think it is an unwise policy because common sense would say that a married, family man would generally be in a better position to fulfill clerical duties. In addition, I think such a policy invites some to enter the priesthood who have no business serving. However, God obviously ordained that Paul be single, so there is a precedent for success.
We also continue to witness miracles, -- thousands of saints of the Catholic Church who work them attest to that today.
Would you elaborate on what this means (i.e. thousands of Catholics who work miracles)?
I’ll consolidate my response to these two posts next.