No quite, as the “gotta be in the Bible” is not dependent upon the premise that all that Jesus ever spoke or that is otherwise the Word of God is written, but that Scripture alone is the class of revelation that is the assured, supernaturally established word of God, upon substantiation by in word and in power the itinerant church began, and by which all is tested by.
And thus “gotta be in the Bible” requires it to be subject to verification by Scripture.
Many might hope brother John ‘heard” God tell him to give 25,000 to the church (or more weighty things), and maybe God did in His chosen way, but that does not have the authority of Scripture, though giving does.
Rome however, as with certain other religious groups, requires full assent of faith to even specific acts not in Scripture, not does assurance of the veracity of such depend upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, and which source again, some claim only has authority by her, hers being directly from God, while an interpretation is only authoritative if by her, thus she is effectively autocratic.
In that Scripture proceeded from the Tradition that preceded it, and that both share the same author, it cannot be in a different or higher class than its antecedent unless you are granting to the Church a power to revise the Tradition that it does not claim for itself. The Church and its Magisterium is a servant of the deposit of faith, not its creator or master.
Domisus Vobiscum.
Though there is no hint of that in the entire Scripture, and in fact, you have to make grand sweeping assumptions, again, that are not actually IN the Bible, to assent to it. i.e. The "inspired table of contents" problem.