Jesus and his disciples criticized tradition and often disobeyed it. Jesus (contrary to the Catholic church) declared that tradition could be a bad thing in two circumstances.
1. When it contradicts scripture ("You therefore nullify the word of God with your traditions")
2. When it is elevated to an equal plain with scripture ("Teaching for doctrine the commandments of men")
The idea of the church and it's leaders being infallible is controverted by Paul warning the elders in Acts that even from their own midst people would come and try to destroy the flock of God. See also I Tim "they shall turn away their ears from the truth...". As a matter of fact, the vote that declared the Pope and the College of Bishops to be infallible only passed by a narrow margin. I guess only some of them were infallible that day, huh ?
We'd argue exactly the opposite...that biblical interpretation on a blank slate, without recourse to how the Bible has *always* been interpreted makes it a useless document.
Look, to tie this back to the matter at hand, the point is that ideas of Mary go all the way back to the earliest centuries, and the early Christians had a decidedly "higher" view of her than many Christians today are willing to grant. You can certainly say that such a high view contradicts Scripture--very well, but then you're asking me to rely on your interpretation, which you will freely admit is not infallible itself. And, I might add, not only is it fallible but it is an interpretation that is fairly new in Christian history. As others have said on this thread, Martin Luther and other Reformers didn't even hold it.
I can't disagree with your premise more. You can't fake a 2000 year tradition--either you have a long chain of documents supporting a view or you don't. In this case, we do.