Very interesting this use of the ECFs to try to support your version of “Sola Scriptura”. I imagine that within a very short time we can expect you to also use them in defense of the Eucharist, the Church hierarchy, Mary, Mother of God and so on........
It certainly has been done before, like in this article, but you dont't believe them, saying they were just speaking as private theologans.
You will only be convinced by the Word of God.
Rom 10:16 However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, "LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT?" 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.
Even if someone rises from the dead to tell you the truth you will not listen.
Luke 16:30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’ 31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.
This could surely evolve into a circular argument.
Our church’s early fathers were decidedly Catholic in their beliefs. Yet, the Church does not accept everything they wrote or theologized as binding. I do not accept your original premise that what was quoted in the original post supports the Protestant doctrine of “Sola Scriptura” in the way in which you would like. It is not that I don’t believe them, it is that I think that their position is not the same as yours.
It is interesting to me when they are used to try to disprove Catholicism, yet the vast and overwhelming writings of these men support Catholicism and the Catholic understanding of Jesus, Mary, the Church, the Eucharist, the Clergy, the teaching office of the Church, and the laity.
This is the role of the Magisterium and the Pope under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It is called discernment and when doctrine is declared as binding, a Catholic can trust that it has been fully explored and understood within the structure of Scripture and Tradition.