There is a difference between something being contrary to Scripture and something which is not explicitly found in Scripture.
For example, the doctrine of the Assumption (of Mary) is not found (or implied) in Scripture. That doesn’t mean it’s contrary to Scripture - nothing in Scripture says that the Assumption did NOT happen. Scripture simply doesn’t mention it. But there’s nothing in Scripture which would seem to preclude it. Scripture never says, “nobody can be assumed into heaven” (and, indeed, Elijah and Enoch were assumed into heaven, so there is, at least, a precedent).
Other doctrines, such a purgatory, have passages in Scripture that don’t explicitly describe it, but are favorable to it.
There are other practices (not really doctrines) that seem contrary to a very literal reading of particular passages of Scripture. Such as when Jesus tells us to call no man “father.” But obviously, this is not to be taken literally - you can obviously call your male predecessor “father” (and, in Biblical times, all of your male ancestors were called “fathers” - our Father Abraham, for example). And, spiritually speaking, Paul calls himself “father” in several passages:
Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. [1Cor 4:15]
I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I became in my imprisonment. [Philemon 1:10]
To Timothy, my dear son: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord. [2Tim: 1-2]
There are no doctrines or sacred Traditions of the Church which explicitly contradict anything in Scripture.