You have to understand that for a RC even if a particular event to a particular person is not shown to have happened, and even lacks evidence from early tradition, and is only said in Scripture that it will happen at the Lord's return, then it can be a doctrine. For since it happened to someone else in Scripture (or even if it did not) then it can be asserted as binding belief that it happened to someone else.
Thus it could be said of Mary that she parted the Red Sea, made iron to float, and walked on water, etc. if some later tradition among the multitude of tales evolved that said so.
For in reality it is not the weight of Scriptural substantiation, upon which the church began, that is the basis for the veracity of RC teaching, but the premise of perpetual magisterial infallibility, which Rome has infallibly defined herself as having.
Thus again,
“the mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.
"Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom... He who rebels against our Father is condemned to death, for that which we do to him we do to Christ: we honor Christ if we honor the Pope; we dishonor Christ if we dishonor the Pope." [St, Catherine of Siena, SCS p 201-202, p222 (quoted in Apostolic Digest, by Michael Matauc, Book 5, "The Book of Obedience", Chapter 1]
That is one scary religion they have.
Are people really that dumb as to make a statement like that? Guess so. It looks like if they say something often enough, it is true. How can anyone support a fake religion like that?