Show me where Scripture says that everything they said and taught is recorded in Scripture.
Why? What's that got to do with putting tradition at the same level of authority as Scripture and rejecting the ultimate authority of Scripture?
Are you saying that if the Bereans were commended for even checking scripture for the truth of what Paul taught that somehow he was saying that things he taught were not contained in scripture? If the things he was teaching were not found in scripture how could they check scripture if these things are true? If he was teaching that scripture did not contain all the things he taught how could they search the scriptures daily to see if these things be true? If the CC says all things are not in scripture did Paul not teach those things not found in scripture?
The Protestant never denied the principle of apostolic tradition or oral instruction. Its just that oral transmission suffers from a high decay rate. Word-of-mouth may be adequate when it comes straight from the mouth of an Apostle to the ear of a contemporary. But theres a categorical difference between the viva voce of the Apostles and a "process of living Tradition" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶83.). Oral tradition is no substitute for a permanent record. It was never intended to supply a common norm for future reference. Thats precisely why revelation was committed to writing (cf. Exod 17:14; Deut 31:9,13,26; Ps 102:18; Isa 30:8). Human memory is too untrustworthy to rely on oral transmission over the long haul. The rediscovery of the written law code (2 Kgs 22:8ff. 2 Chron 34:14ff.) powerfully illustrates the inadequacies of unaided memory in keeping a people from apostasya point made by R. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church (Eerdmans, 1986), 66.
To take another example, (a) Papias was, according to Irenaeus, a younger contemporary of the Apostle John. He made an earnest effort to collect the agrapha of Christ. Yet despite his proximity to primitive recollection, his gleanings are remarkably meager, and have an unmistakably derivative flavor. Owing to the short shelf-life of oral tradition, as well as the incentive to fabricate tradition (e.g. the NT apocrypha), no formal authority attaches to mere tradition, although some of it may afford probative evidence for past practice.
Moreover, Sacred Tradition, as currently redefined, is not the same as an oral mode of transmission. It ceases to be a conservative force and becomes a revisionary dynamic. Again, Jesus warns us against the dangers of man-made tradition, and judges that tradition by the standard of Scripture (Mt 7:7-8,13). But when human tradition comes to be identified with a divine teaching office, it is then impervious to the correction of Scripture, and were right back to the situation that summoned forth our Lords reproof. http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2004/04/ten-objections-to-sola-scriptura-2.html