Your assertion is meaningless. Prove the IC of Mary from your "Tradition" AND the Scriptures - if you can!
BTW, history is not on your side on this issue!
I was reading a study of Jewish theological history recently which painted 4 general areas of Judaism at the time of the Incarnation per Josephus.
There were Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, and Zealots.
The Pharisees became the rabbinical leaders who held the authority of both the Written and Oral Torahs.
The Zealots were a patriotic apocalyptic group though to have split off from the Pharisees in the last decades of the Temple to revolt against Roman rule.
The Sadducees were associated with the traditional priesthood descended from Zadok ultimately from Aaron’s son Eleazar. They were noted for their adherence only to the Written Torah and rejection of the Mosaic tradition of the Oral Torah.
The Essenes, who rejected not only the Oral Torah, but the Temple sacrifices offered by the politically appointed Hasmonaean high priests and whose communities were governed by the Pythagorean rule.
Kabbalah is a word meaning ‘tradition’.
It’s been said that Church age believers who fail to study and learn from the errors of the Hebrew nation from Old Testament times, are likely to repeat those errors today, even when salvation is so much closer at hand.
I find the parallels between those Judaic groups, holding fast to tradition or Kabbalah, which in many facets was an esoteric secretive study in geometry, language/sound and number, to uncannily match those who adhere to “the Tradition” of the Catholic Church, yet deny teaching Scripture only to those those believers who seek God through faith in Christ by Scripture only.
The IC is based on scripture as I said and it does not in any way CONTRADICT scripture.