There is no devaluing going on here. If anything, Protestants devalue Tradition moreso than anyone. Past that, they tend to elevate their devotion to the Bible almost to the point of idolatry.
Also, everything you pointed out is from the Apocalypse (Book of Revelation) and applies to that book.
Yet, Christ Himself is not recorded as having ever written anything. Neither did more than five of the original 12 Apostles write anything. They were not commissioned to "write"; they were commissioned to "teach." That teaching is not of an identitiy with writing is discernable from God's own providence for His Church. Were the two of an identical character, God would have seen to it that all of the apostles had taken pen to parchment or pen to papyrus and allowed themselves to be led by divine inspiration, as the actual New Testament writers had been.
In any event, the Church was already developing oral traditions long before St. Paul wrote the first words of the New Testament (or even if St. Matthew did!). Paul even alludes to one in Acts 20:35. It is silly to suppose that all of the original oral teaching of the Church found its way into the New Testament. John 21:25 alone says as much.
That you and others chafe at the supposition that certain things practiced by Catholics aren't explicitly found in Scripture makes no difference to us. We follow the traditions of the Church handed down through the ages, because we know that the essential charism of the Church is to teach, not necessarily to write. It is very telling that most of the traditions Catholics have are shared, perhaps with different emphases, but shared nevertheless, by the Orthodox, from whom we are separated nearly 500 years longer than from you. But there was no impetus on the part of the Orthodox to throw tradition out the window, so it has been largely kept intact. That the two apostolic faiths have so much in common, even after a 1000 year separation, demonstrates that the "innovations" of Catholicism used by the proto-Protestants of the 1500's as an excuse to chuck tradition were not innovations at all. Those held in common between Catholics and Orthodox were already, by definition, at least 450 years old by Luther's time, though, of course they were much older than that.
The argument is always made that such-and-such teaching of Catholics cannot be found in the Bible. Usually, that's not the case. But, on occasion, there is some truth to the claim. But so what? How does Protestantism, arriving on the scene 3/4 of the way from Christ to the present day, justify the disavowal of tradition or the continuous teaching office of the Church? Especially when no specific warrant for such an action can be found in the Bible, which is their *only* source of Christian truth? The two apostolic faiths are a constant witness against this mindset. How reckless a mentality to assume that authority for this suddenly developed! Where authority became a vacuum, new authority had to flow into its place. Endless division is the fruit, and will be till the end of time, or the end of the divisions. There is no middle option.