you answered;
Irrelevant to you perhaps, but not irrelevant to the actual truth of the matters.
Here again, some highlights;
"In this connection, it is assuredly worthy of note that Luther, for instance, based his Catechisms, not on a carefully considered system of proofs, but quite simply on what are called the loci, the priciple deposits of faith, which he gathered together and explained: the Ten Commandments, the Our Father, the sacraments, the confession of faith. In doinig so, it might be added, he followed the most ancient catechetical traditions and thus differed in no formal way from the Catholic Church. ..."
That pretty much blows away the contention you made previously that Luther "invented" things. You claimed he did, then when pressed to show how he may have done so, answered with a bunch of substance-less 'smoke'.
"Granted, the sources that were to be discovered anew flowed first and above all in the Holy Scripture; but the search for a new way in which theology could assimilate what was said in the Scriptures and realize it in the Church led of it's own accord to the Fathers, to the era of the early Church, in which the waters of faith still flowed unpolluted and in all their freshness."
I will note here that Sola Scriptura as that can be rightfully understood -- does not block out tradition, or even block entirely out traditional understanding/interpretations of Scripture either particularly when those are closest to the source, as "...waters of faith still flowed unpolluted and in all their freshness."
Scripture over tradition, as in highest check of traditions -- we are getting closer.
He goes on with this acknowledged downgrading, as it were, or else if the "Fathers" were all that reliable as for scriptural exegesis, he would not need speak of them is the guarded fashion in which he does;
".... Assuredly, the Fathers are not, then, devoid of all significance for the modern scriptural exegete. At the very least, he will have to acknowledge them as witnesses to the text and as members of an age that was relatively close to the origin of the Scriptures; but the role that thus falls to them is a modest one that is, in any event, quite different from the concept of the normative power of the unanimus concensus Patrum with which we began." ...
Whoa, dude. Did you just catch that?
A confession of sorts! The previously (Vatican I) unanimous consent of the Fathers is now being confessed to being "quite different" than...what was that? Of the [ahem] "normative power", and that simply must be the "power" as it was long and normally considered and applied (in light of scriptural exegesis) since Council of Trent, which was then re-affirmed at Vatican I.
So now, since the writing of that which I quote, from 1978 publishing date...this big (but quietly executed, lol) downgrading of ECF's when it comes to them having been the foundational support -- not for "tradition" (they can be seen to disagree there also!) but as to how Scripture itself is understood.
As W. Webster put it; Trent initially promulgated this principle as a means of countering the Reformation teachings to make it appear that the Reformers’ doctrines were novel and heretical while those of Rome were rooted in historical continuity.
Not much in the way of "unanimous" support left, nowadays. The truth has finally put the lie to that 16th Century fiction written up (and likely believed to be true by the writers at the time?) at Council of Trent. We'll skip down to the last;
This insight can be deepened and it's content enriched. The fact already mentioned, namely, that Scripture is always read in some way under tutelage of certain "Fathers" can now be expressed in the more general formula that Scripture and the Fathers belong together as do word and answer. The two are not identical, are not of equal importance, The word is always first; the response, second---the order is not to be reversed."
Word of God -- OVER --- "certain" Fathers, showing there support for Sola Scriptura, and leaving unanimous consent seriously wounded (in comparison to where 'Rome' has traipsed off to with it, in the meantime). Wounded if not -- goodbye -- gone -- for there really never was entirely unanimous consent (agreement) among all the ECF's anyway -- regarding Scriptural interpretations.
Which is ok enough, and to be expected, but a entirely different picture has emerged now that more people, both inside and outside of the RCC have so much better, wider, deeper and more complete access to the fuller writings available writings of the ECF's then arguably most of the attendees of the Council of Trent had.
The author of what I quoted above is none other than Carl Ratzinger. Formerly Pope Benedict XVI, now known as Pope Emiritus. Principles of Catholic Theology: Building Stones for a Fundamental Theology
Nice guy.
But his writing undoes, knocks the supports out from under some long-held Romanist attitudes & opinions,although that is best gleaned and understood when reading the better part of a hundred pages or so, from about 110 to 180.
It bears saying again here that "sola scriptura" is one of five interdependent & interlocking solas. It also stands to mention that Luther, by Ratzinger's own assessment, came to see the RCC Church of his own era as the enemy of salvation itself -- particularly the common man --so he [Luther] had to work against it, even as he was trapped within it in his thinking, all of his life...
The principle I have been discussing is not reliant upon Ratzinger of course, yet within that man's own writing, support for the idea (read that last line, quoted and enlarged above again) is very solid for how sola scriptura is classically recognized and described by "Protestant" theologians.
Turning the principle into something else, using some other descriptive means may be comforting for RC polemicists who desire to shoot it down or suppress it as much as possible, but they must first make a straw-man out of it (subtly change the definition) to make any progress against it.
Please ignore the insetting of the last portion of comment which is directly beneath the link I supplied to the book which I was sourcing text from.
The insetting could make it look like those were Ratzinger's words, there at the end. Those -- were not.
But the rest of the inset portions WERE Ratzinger's own words, despite possible typo's of my own remaining there.
Like I said initially, I had to type it all out by hand.
As I said: It’s irrelevant. Besides, if you actually read the book, you sould see he makes it clear on pages 95, 96, 101, and 223 that sola scriptura is a false and inadequate doctrine. But, I guess, the truth does not really fit into twilight world.