You said
and I just proved that to be incorrect -- not true.
When we retrace the exchange of comments back to #5389 where it started, Elsie said;
he was obviously enough (to my own eyes) not there speaking of 'Rome' as it were having added to 'scripture' itself, but was instead speaking about what 'Rome' teaches that is addition to scripture, as in "extra-biblical", not in the bible, etc.
Understand now?
So that make you wrong here in two ways at once! Imagine thAT.
I know that this is the Protestant mantra, but this is not the case. By about 4 century the canon was formed and in the Catholic Church has not changed since for both Old Testament and the Old. There was, of course, textual work done by linguists, and translations were done but that is the same Catholic Bible since then. But the books of the Bible have not changed since John the Evangelist finished his Apocalypse, so that is, roughly, 2000 years.
That the Church teaches something in addition to what it teaches through the Holy Scripture is of course true. But the Church does not fool anyone that it is scripture. When a pope writes an encyclical, for example, it does not get added to the canon of scripture. It is known to all to be a latter teaching, and often speaking to a problem that just emerged, not covered in the scripture in any way.
Because you-all Protestants invented the idiotic idea that the faith comes from scripture alone, plus tossed whatever books you don't like and ignore half of the content of the Gospels, you have that perception of the world where "extra-biblical" has some special meaning that you put in it. I am not playing your games.