That's refreshing, considering the source!
That is one of several biggie differences between the Catholics and the Protties. Part of this difference is that the Catholics all along insisted on hewing to the teachings and history of the Church; the Protestants, as far as I can tell, jumped ship so hard over indulgences, that they decided it was less risky to throw out ALL traditions and reports of visions or visitations, and much of the accrued practices and devotional artwork, in addition to the formalism and (for a time) administrative overhead.
No: instead the reason they reacted against indulgences was due to the regard of Scripture as supreme. Thus why should not they ascertain the validity of what is preached by that source, as noble truth-loving Bereans did? And seeing as Catholic distinctives are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive record of what the NT church believed, then the only inconsistency is that they kept some of the Catholic errors, including the use of the sword of men to deal with theological errors.
Now if you want to equate Cath oral tradition with that of apostolic preaching, then you need to do what they could do, which is to speak as wholly inspired of God and provide new public revelation thereby, neither which even Rome presumes pope do.
If you want to argue that oral transmission can be the word of God, then the question becomes on what basis do we know this. We know something like it was Jannes and Jambres who withstood Moses (2 Timothy 3:8) but its inclusion in Scripture, but how do we know what Scripture consists of, and means, andalso that something not recorded therein is the word of God?
And even if want to argue that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth. And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus whatever she officially teaches is the word of God, then do so, so we might see where this leads.
But at least you seem to be doing what i have advised Caths to do, which is give up trying to make a case for PTCBIH based on Scripture, since it has become an argument against them, and admit (implicitly or not) it comes from to tradition
However, considering that we are not dealing with something like an event like the Assumption (which actually lacks evidence from early tradition) or some marginal issue, but a most basic common spiritual practice, to argue for PTCBIH by believers, esp. the NT church, despite the utter absence of any prayer in Scripture among over 200 addressed to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord, actually impugns that source. If it will not even attest to this then it opens up the door for many other aberrations
I'm too tired to delve into this as deep as it seems to require.
0) First, as to the Bereans: this was in Pauline times, and "the Scriptures" meant in his case, the Hebrew Scriptures, there are other verses about how he proved from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ. This was closer to apologetics, and is not exactly the same thing as justifying a practice or not, depending on whether it is practiced or was recorded in Scripture (see below). But I'll just throw out a couple of tidbits which seem to be useful in, as it were, parsing reports of "apparitions" (*) defined by my for the purposes of this discussion, as, dreams or visions purporting to be an angel, a Saint, or Mary.
You are right, there are aberrations: but in all fairness, there have *always* been aberrations, going all the way back to Aaron and the Golden Calf. And I'm not going to take the cheap shot of going after any number of Protestant aberrations...explicitly because there are Biblical admonitions (commands, really) to seek how to spur one another on to love and good works, that the servant of the Lord must not strive, and that one should welcome one whose faith is weak, but not for disputation (the cool part about that verse, is that the more someone thinks "but I'm *RIGHT* drat it all" the more they are constrained to be patient; and, it applies to Catholics, and Protties, and Orthodox, too...
1) The Catholics seem to take a rather skeptical view *officially*, often saying, if the believer finds private edification, OK, but we do not officially recognize nor compel acceptance.
This is the "see below." The usefulness of Scripture is that it gives benchmarks for testing to see whether things are genuinely of God, and protecting against aberrations.
2) "The testimony of Jesus Christ is the spirit of prophecy" -- the visions (unless explicitly personal e.g. "rise, Peter, kill and eat" or "come to Macedonia and help us") should glorify God and point (even if indirectly through a saint) to Jesus (well, and / or the Father: the Spirit seems to direct our attention to Them, not Himself).
3) "Believe not every spirit etc. / every Spirit which confesses Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God" -- this is from 1 John and holds true.
Finally, on a more personal note, and applying the tests above to a standard Catholic practice:
4) I was quite surprised, upon first reading the Rosary some time after converting to Catholicism, to discover that a) the meat of the Rosary was in fact *meditation* (thinking on, pondering) on episodes in the life of Jesus and/or the Apostles (including Mary)
b) one of these was explicitly the Baptism in the Holy Spirit
c) the Prayer after the Rosary, which reads, "O GOD, whose only begotten Son, by His life, death, and resurrection, has purchased for us the rewards of eternal life, grant, we beseech Thee, that meditating upon these mysteries of the Most Holy Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary, we may imitate what they contain and obtain what they promise, through the same Christ Our Lord." Even when I tried, I couldn't find any thing objectionable in it.