You may not be trying to be inflammatory; nevertheless you are. You could work on it, which would not be contrary to your doctrine.
Sola Scriptura. This of course is an abbreviated phrase that refers to a doctrine that can and should be fleshed out. If one wants simply to bandy about such terms, even assuming we each meant the same thing with the words, little will be gained. What we are really talking about is the normative authority of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. To assert a teaching that contradicts the normative authority of the Scriptures is to deny their authority. That is plain logic. It takes no advanced degree to figure it out. The plain fact is that the early church fathers did not advance teachings that were at variance with the Scriptures. If you can show me where this is not so in the fathers, please do so. The Reformers were well aware of and very respectful toward the fathers, disregarding them only where they were in clear violation of the plain meaning of the Scriptures ... and even then with great respect, as is due our fathers in the faith.
Sola fide. Please, don’t make me laugh. My tagline should be enough to show that, at least in the case of Ambrose, this is the faith of the fathers. And go ahead, check the context of the quote. You have the reference. I am not taking Ambrose out of context. Does the “sola” forbid or even hinder good works, not at all. That is a false charge, but leveled often even in the face of clear statement to the contrary. But it wouldn’t be the first time in world history where slander is promulgated “for the greater good.” Salvation by faith in the completed work of Christ is early church doctrine, to be sure not always enumerated as unambiguously as it should have been. But very easy to find in the fathers. To call such a thing “unknown to the early church,” again, please ... Get real.
Consubstantiation. Not the Lutheran doctrine. Sorry. I have gone through this with a few Protestant posters who didn’t like being corrected and reacted rather badly. But check your sources. This is not Lutheran doctrine. I invite anyone reading this to disprove me ... anyone.
The Reformation was not a doctrinal revolution. If you believe that it only shows that either you are unknowingly misinformed or ... well.
You say the church has always believed in the normative authority of the Scriptures, well, I think you should examine more carefully Catholic doctrine. Its position is a little less firm (assume understatement here) than you are indicating.
i accept your admonition on being inflammatory.
ss- it’s not Biblical, see 2 Thessalonians and the Church has always followed the Apostolic Tradition. even Lutherans do, there is no Scripture commanding infant baptism, yet Lutherans correctly practice it, because the Church received this teaching from the Apostles.
sf - the hang up is the “sola” no where does the Bible use faith alone, in fact James specifically contradicts this doctrine. even Luther saw this and wanted James tossed from the canon!
c- not quite sure on the history of this one, but “This is My Body” means just that.
the reformation was nothing less than a doctrinal revolution, every doctrine was open to question and the result is utter confusion. the Holy Spirit is not the author of confusion!
i am very well versed in Catholic doctrine and the authority of the Scriptures. what is not allowed is everyone being their own authority, this is found no where in the Bible.