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.
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.
The quote by the Church fathers is very nicely a demonstration of Sola Scriptura. We believe the scripture to be the only infallible authority. We believe in "tradition" or teaching that lines up with scripture. I find most RC's have a false idea of what is meant by Sola scriptura.