You objected to that, so I explained what Rao meant. It's evident he meant a return to the sources of Christian doctrine, and that would be the tra-ditio in the big-T sense, what was handed down to us from the Apostles. (He was not talking about Hot Cross Buns.)
In the historic Christian sense, that would include the Apostles' teaching, their written memoirs, the way of prayer and way of life they transmitted to the original Christian communities.
As you can see, that comprises Scripture (the part that was written down by the Apostles' own hand or by their scribes) as well as their preaching and example.
My original point may have been poorly stated and thus open to misinterpretation, but thank you for letting me --- with a fresh coffee in front of me --- try again.
But of course this is not falsifiable in any way, nor provable, unless demonstrated from original/contemporaneous sources before 100ad.
You are left with a game of telephone. And in the case of Rome, there are many things never taught by an Apostle, nor practiced before 100ad that are doctrines and practices. This includes pagan practices.
As you can see, that comprises Scripture (the part that was written down by the Apostles' own hand or by their scribes) as well as their preaching and example.
No, it doesn't fully comprise Scripture. This was the problem with your original claim.
Scripture stands alone as authoritative, verifiable and sufficient.
with a fresh coffee in front of me
Something we can agree on!