With that in mind people ought to give major credibility to the early Church fathers who lived closer to the time Christ walked the earth and who saw the closest thing to anything of original Scripture and interpreted Scripture by clear consistent belief in the 7 Sacraments
RC teaching is that she judges the CFs more than they judge her, as often some disagree with Rome, and the tradition-based EOs invoke them in support of their many differences with her.
From what i have read you neither have most of what it is estimated all the CFs wrote, (the most complete written compilation of the "Father's" works, the Oxford/Edinburgh "Ante-Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers," was compiled by Anglicans and fills 38 volumes, yet it is held that this work contains only a small selection of the writings of the Church Fathers), nor an infallible list of all the CFs (one at least is held to be a women), and these were not inspired writers of Scripture.
But we do agree that all Scripture is wholly inspired of God, though Roman scholarship is often quite liberal in its interpretation of Scripture, while divisions and disagreements (besides what is effectively allowed) also exist under the Roman means of unity (sola ecclesia).
I'm not sure everything you wrote is accurate regarding the Anglicans, but regardless. There is even less information on what is said to be original Scripture, so you're faced with a problem when you disregard information from what the Church Fathers wrote interpreting Scripture that we know was closer to the original Scripture.