Perhaps by illustration.
The Catholic church has as dogma that Mary was assumed bodily into heaven. Pope Pius XII made an infallible pronouncement and thus belief in the dogma is required of Catholics.
Tradition has it this occurred about A.D. 48. This would've a momentous event occurring before most of the NT was written down.
Yet not one word concerning it, not a hint, not the slightest notice is recorded in the Scriptures.
But corporeal assumption into heaven is not ignored as a subject since Paul said that flesh and blood cannot inherit the heavenly kingdom. (1 Cor. 15:50)
Paul makes the point that the physical, corporeal, corruptible body must be given up for the spiritual body for entrance into heaven in that same 15th. chapter.
The majesterium has spoken infallibly. Paul has spoken with the authority of Christ's revelation to him.
Will Scripture be made subject to tradition?
Okay. Gotcha. I think I have a handle on what you are saying.
You're saying Scripture gets superseded by Tradition in cases such as you outline regarding Mary and her bodily assumption.
Is that a fair restatement of your point? I'll proceed on the assumption ;o) you would agree.
First let us recognize the use of Scripture in your argument; specifically, that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the heavenly kingdom."
Now in order for your reading of 1 Cor 15:50 to present a problem to the bodily assumption of Mary, you are making assumptions about what that Scripture says that are NOT in Scripture.
The same rationale is used by the Pharisees in Matthew 12:1 and Mark 2:23 to make accusation against Jesus' disciples in that they presumed the apostles grabbing a snack on the Sabbath constituted a violation of the law against "harvesting." And of course, we know this deduction was fallacious.
The deduction Paul's remarks in 1 Corinthians constitute a Scriptural conflict with Mary's bodily assumption is just as fallacious, and for the same reasons. The Scripture being cited is NOT a categorical statement, as proven by the heavenly presence of Enoch, Elijah, and indeed Christ himself.
Now you could quibble the point, but such quibbling would also entail assumptions that are similarly not categorical statements.
And to be honest, is not citing that Scripture in that way for the express purpose of proposing a conflict between Scripture and Tradition, because one WANTS to find a conflict with Catholic teaching regarding the bodily assumption of Mary?
Does that seem like innocent Christian thinking to you?