Bold assertions, but consider the issue of the canon.
Protestants say that Catholics “added” seven books to the Old Testament. In fact, Luther even argued that seven New Testament books were not inspired, and rejected all doctrine from those seven books. (Modern Protestants have uniformly restored the seven New Testament deuterocanonicals to their bibles, so this has been forgotten largely.)
Catholics assert that they have always been part of the canon. And indeed, they were universally read as scripture in masses (the Catholic test of what is scripture) since the first century.
But the weird truth is that there had always been substantial grey shades to the biblical canon until the Council of Trent; before then, there had never been a universal synod declaring the content of the canons. At Trent, the Church had to look to the universal usage among the particular churches to infallibly discern the canonicity of the dueterocanonicals.
The Protestant assertion that St. Jerome rejected the canon is both malarkey (he explains that he was reacting merely to the impossibility of winning Jews over to the Church’s theology using them, since the Jews — not he — reject the deuterocanonicals) and also irrelevant (if he only came to accept the deuterocanonicals under duress from the Pope, does that not demonstrate that the Pope authoritatively asserted the matter to him?)
But the weakness of the Protestant position that any one of the deuterocanonicals is not scriptural doesn’t wash away the awkward lack of definition of the canon:
A medieval gloss of the bible warns of the futility of basing theological arguments on those books;
Jesus himself cites as scripture two books which didn’t make the Catholic canon; there were variations in the accepted New Testament canon for three centuries after Christ;
to this day, various Eastern churches hold additional books as canon (most commonly 3 Maccabees;
To this day, 2 Esdras (also known as 3 Esdras, or Greek Esdras) remains in a canonical limbo: It was part of many versions of the Septuagint, but the Council of Trent left it out of the list of books that must be defended as sources of doctrine, for the simple reason it had no unique doctrine. (It’s an abridged version of 1 Esdras, which itself is more commonly divided into two books, Ezra and Nehemiah.)
Truly, the bible is an expression of the Holy Tradition given to the Church by Christ. And while anything that is not in accord with the Scriptures is thereby revealed to be counterfeit to the Holy Tradition, and while it sustains that Holy Tradition, and while it breathes the life of that Holy Tradition within the reader of it, it is NOT the temporal source of that Holy Tradition.
I'm guessing that you meant to say the OLD Testament deuterocanonicals/apocryphal books? There are additional points that you err on as well. Here are a few links to help on that:
However, oral "Tradition" is an amorphous "thing," that only has substance as it is expressed as Cath. doctrine, and as with Scripture, it is and only means whatever Rome says it is and means, thus Rome is the supreme authority.
Thus contradictions btwn the two, as well as btwn them and RC doctrines are disallowed by an entity which is effectively autocratic, with the veracity of her doctrines not being dependent upon the weight of Scriptural warrant, but rest upon the premise of the assured veracity of Rome.
Which is based upon certain presuppositions, as i have seen argued, that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority.
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who knowingly dissent from the latter are in some form of rebellion to God.
I can argue against them showing that these lack Scriptural warrant, but am ultimately met with with the response that the Catholic church alone is correct since she gave is the Bible... And around and around we go.
Contrary to this is that both men and writings were essentially established as being of God due to their Heavenly qualities and attestation, and that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.
And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.)
Thus even the veracity of oral preaching, or "tradition" in the NT depended upon conflation with Scripture, and thus Scripture was the supreme authoritative standard, with the veracity of magisterial judgments dependent upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.