"I can't help but notice that when we are discussing subjects such as Sola Scriptura it is always the quotes from your "church fathers" that are used to support your argument, not Scripture."
Not just "our" church fathers, yours too, WF.
"I rely on Scripture."
So do they, WF. They are sublimely and supremely scriptural. If you ever take the time to read them, you will find that they support every point they are making with scriptural references. You may not agree with their interpretation, but its likely you disgree with many, many Protestant interpretations too. The quoted piece is from an entire Homily on just a few verses of Matthew.
"I don't find the reasoning of "church fathers", who are really just theologians of a particular sect, to be as authoritative as Scripture."
You should understand that the Fathers really had no particular sectarian axe to grind. There were some heretical groups running around, Arians and the like, but the overwhelming majority of the writings of the Fathers are to members of The Church, which the overwhelming majority of people were in those times. There was no "magisterium" then, especially out East, no "Roman company line" to toe. There were the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, but the vast majority of Protestants accept those to this day, the Reformers themselves more than you people today.
These men were true "theologians", but to attribute to them some apologetic sectarian motivation (conscious or unconscious) is simply a modern, Western misapprehension of what they were doing. These men share little with the apologists of the West, Latin or Protestant, who have contested with each other since the 16th century.
I'm not so sure about that. I don't see the Baptist's being a part of your sect. Persecuted by it, but never a part of it.