You mean like the life stories of Anna and Mary? The Bible isn't their story...
No, like the Assumption, which while having a precedent, is lacking any record in Scripture or promise, and is even lacking in early testimony from tradition, while her crowning before the Lord's return is contrary to what Scripture teaches.
Instead, Rome claims it can "remember" that which lacks evidence, while the basis for the veracity of this binding doctrine rests upon the specious premise of the ensured infallibility of Rome.
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.
Ratzinger writes (emp. mine),
Ratzinger writes (emp. mine), Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative . What here became evident was the one-sidedness, not only of the historical, but of the historicist method in theology. “Tradition” was identified with what could be proved on the basis of texts. Altaner, the patrologist from Wurzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the “apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared.
This argument is compelling if you understand “tradition” strictly as the handing down of fixed formulas and texts [or actual ancient reliable records] …But if you conceive of “tradition” as the living process whereby the Holy Spirit introduces us to the fullness of truth and teaches us how to understand what previously we could still not grasp (cf. Jn 16:12-13), then subsequent “remembering” (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of previously [meaning the needed evidence was absent] and was already handed down in the original Word.” [invisibly but per Rome's say so, via amorphous oral tradition]- J. Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), pp. 58-59.
The so called "tradition" of the Catholic Church trumps scripture.
Again you spout a lie, despite all evidence to the contrary. The Church has never relegated Scripture to second place
Rather, it is you who again is misrepresenting, if ignorantly, what Rome really holds to, for she claims that Scripture only consists of and means what she officially teaches in any conflict. Likewise this is claimed of history and tradition.
As no less an authority than Manning asserted in the face of contrary claims,
"It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine....The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour." — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, pp. 227,28
"Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law..all interpretation is foolish and false which either makes the sacred writers disagree one with another, or is opposed to the doctrine of the Church." (Providentissimus Deus;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html)
"The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children...to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question. This places the Catholic in a position whereby he must stand aloof from all manner of doctrinal teaching other than that delivered by his Church through her accredited ministers." — (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapters XIX, XXIII. the consistent believer (1904); Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York )
However, Scripture requires the Church as teacher to fully understand it (Acts 8:26-40, 2 Peter 3:16, 2 Peter 1:20, 1 Tim 3:15).
More careless or ignorant prooftexting, as you are not simply supporting believers explaining Scripture, but must support an an infallible magisterium. However, Acts 8:26-40 at best simply lends support to the teaching office, which the Scribes and Pharisees once sat in, (Mt. 23:2) though here it only shows a deacon explaining Isaiah 53. But which does not extrapolate into the church fully understanding Scripture, while Paul said "now we see through a glass, darkly," (1Co. 13:12) unlike when the perfect revelation of Christ shall appear. (1Jn. 3:2)
And 2 Peter 3:16 simply censures the unlearned who wrest Scriptures, as RCs example in trying to support traditions of men, but it does not mean the magisterium fully understands Scripture, or that the rest are unlearned. In fact, Rome has infallibly defined very few texts, or even provided an official commentary.
Perhaps you would have us follow the commentary it has sanctioned for decades in the NAB Bible?
, 2 Peter 1:20
Next we come to the classic proof text against "private interpretation, but which is not about understanding Scripture at all, but refers to how prophecy was penned.
For rather than being the result if the insight of the mind of men, Peter states of prophecy,
Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. (1 Peter 1:10-11)
While prophecy can refer to Scripture as a whole, the point is that writing the wholly inspired word is not the same thing as understanding it. Do you even think the words Rome teaches from oral tradition, and infallible papal teaching is wholly inspired of God?
1 Tim 3:15
Finally we come to that old often-invoked mainstay of RCs, but how does "church living God, pillar and ground the truth" translate into the church fully understanding Scripture or being the supreme and infallible authority? Versus the church upholding the truth it is rooted in, and belongs to? Which came first, Scripture, by which the church established its Truth claims, or the church, by which complimentary conflative writings were progressively added to Scripture? As was done in the past, without any infallible mag. .
I would find it very hard to wind a circle tighter than this!