In contradistinction, in distinction of contrast to in other words. That's a good way of putting it.
Which begs the question, what was this "teaching of the church" before during and after the Reformation, which the solas were set in contradistinction with? Please don't try and tell me it was the exact same things universally taught as from the beginning, for we can see there have been changes over time, just as we can see different aspects a faith being stressed or highlighted over other aspects within the near, and most far flung of the Catholic and Orthodox churches today.
Getting back to the discussion of the principle that scripture must be held foremost as a check, or test of practice...
One thing the Reformers were assuredly battling against, was the idea of papal supremacy itself. It didn't fit well from the Word, when taken in context of all else.
Though adherents and promoters of that particular dogma may attempt reliance upon tradition for support, that doesn't quite work when we refer back to the church teachings of that earlier time, current with the early Christological debates, which as you referred to previous, was a time when ""they sought what was coherent and consistent of the faith taught by Christ to His Apostles."
Going back even further, it gets even worse for papal supremacy. It was unheard of. Not found in the Word much either, unless one squints hard at certain verses, then ignores the pattern & practice of the foundational Apostolic church.
Since traditional belief and practice falls quite short of the goal of having all other genuine Apostolic churches of the world, whom previously had regarded each other as brethren, and together, with the head being Christ --- accept the idea of the Roman bishop being supreme, it is then the church of Rome must rely much upon it's own private interpretation of scripture (with a bit of spin of some carefully selected quotes of early church notables). The idea was first forcefully proposed as being irresistible by their own selves --- not arising from the group of other churches.
So what can be seen to have occurred, but for Rome to leverage the good reputation it had enjoyed times previous, earned in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, to force feed the rest of the universal church to eat that bowl of yopios which they crafted, pushing their own version la` petite of sola scriptura over and above tradition, far from being "coherent and consistent of the faith taught by Christ to His Apostles."
was mixed in as result.
Sola scriptura can have it's downsides, that much is true.
When we look to "...one faith, One Lord, one baptism" we can all indeed share much unity (even we separated brethren) when those on either side be focused upon the central figure. I'm glad you put him in the middle, for there is found best hope for us all.
The Medieval Conciliarists, I think, had it partly right.
The Pope belongs in the center of the ecclesiological scheme as the canons of the Council of Sardica of 341 envisioned playing referee, not as an absolute monarch.
Conciliarism doesn’t work. We’ve seen that in Orthodoxy where absolute chaos reigns in the turf battles between the various local Orthodox Churches without any way to resolve the problems.
The papacy needs to return to the situation that prevailed prior to the Dictatus Papae of Gregory VII.
When heresies arose it's found in the decisions of the councils. Read the ecumenical councils and you'll have a pretty clear view. The liturgy, which we can see as far back as the Roman catacombs is important.
Specific to your question, I'd recommend St. John of Damascus' "An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith" as the single best source for a organized compilation of teaching of the Church.
Getting back to the discussion of the principle that scripture must be held foremost as a check, or test of practice...
That's different than sola. As we see hourly on here, you can debate quite different theology from scripture. You need an authority to decide.
One thing the Reformers were assuredly battling against, was the idea of papal supremacy itself. It didn't fit well from the Word, when taken in context of all else.
It certainly didn't fit well with Luther. He tried to decide his own canon, wrote his own translation, inserting words where he needed to fit his view.
Luther was not one to promote the "each individual his own authority" that we see today. That's a very recent mostly American development. The rebellion from the authority of the Bishop of Rome has ended up as rebellion from *any* authority, except the individual.
The theory of sola scriptura is not scriptural and in practice, well, we get what we see.
Thanks for your courteous response.