Name dropping can be near meaningless...though doing so possibly demonstrates the erroneous conception (loose assumption) that all those named persons supported Roman Catholic doctrines as those are today --- without there being any discernible differences.
The differences can at times be but slight in initial superficial appearance, yet the ramifications as for the differences be part of a larger contextual view which presents significant variance (and even direct opposition) to what developed later.
Yet in that list of individuals you just named, there is one thing that is easy to show marked difference for, compared to what the RCC now says is "truth" .
There are hosts of others who were in agreement with Athanasius as to what is included in Old Testament -- and what was not.
You say such things as;
without stipulating what "truths" you are talking about -- more specifically.
But to be both generous -- and accusatory, I will venture that it is not the fault of rank-and-file [Roman] Catholics today, to commit the error of thinking all those who you named, supported all of what later developed as dogma and doctrine.
The promoters of the RCC (to be over and above all other Churches, so the claims always include --- a preaching "of the church" more than "preaching of Christ" it does seem) have been working steadily at building up that image for more than a thousand years.
When the records are examined in closer detail, it often turns out that what was "cherry-picked" as quotation from one of those of the earliest of those which you named --- were not expressing the same concept as the isolated quotes are frequently represented to be, though admittedly it can be time-consuming to gather up and then lay out all the evidence in order to prove things one way or another.
I see you did nothing of the sort yourself, no deeper examination of the quotations which you rejected -- but instead linked back to a previous "editorial-like", expression of your own opinion comment of your own from years ago now, yourself having done so at least once previous on this thread, after having offered up a pair of your own isolated & "selective" quotes, as if the words of two, entirely overpower the words of others, enough so that the "others" should be given short shrift, and entirely ignored?
Your claim of "selective quoting" in reply #182 which you submitted in reply to the quotes provided in comment #169 for multiple ECF's having provided clear support for the concept of Scripture being supreme, is just so much assertion that is was only isolated-out-of-context citation (if that was what you intended).
Sure the Church had Tradition. One of the Traditions from earliest times was to rely upon the Holy Scriptures as being over all, thus supreme. That worked for most things, for most early tradition had enjoyed support from Scripture, all along. If not-- then show us more of what early tradition there was -- that can be adduced to have been established by the Apostles, rather than have arisen later -- first, as custom.
The example you provided for the contrary of reliance upon Scripture as Supreme, are just so much early example of where things can go wrong (even if they did not, at those junctures)-- particularly in that second example, where Basil invokes "others we have received delivered to us "in mystery" by the tradition of the Apostles; which could possibly be OK -- yet is also much the way things which arose more along line of custom that had been introduced post-Apostolic age, could be confused as having been in actual fact "Apostolically" sourced when it was not.
The situation for later individuals which you listed in the comment to which this note is addressed in reply, such as Aquinas, scarcely matters except for what was likely to be believed in his own era, for one as late as Aquinas, although one could look upon how Aquinas incorporated the fraudulent Pseudo–Isidorian Decretals in his own writings, unknowingly to himself incorporating falsified theological/historical context in support of Romish Papacy (and Supremacy) which has still to be rooted out from among Roman Catholic theology.
As for Augustine -- he can be shown to have promoted a 'spiritualized' view of what came to be termed ---Eucharist, while it comes across (still, even this day, far removed from the Reformation) that the RCC teaches something akin to a 'carnal flesh' presence and reality (for the wafer or "host", after consecration), since that is how many "Catholics" speak of this, what with the alleged miracle of Lanciano, and other perceived-to-be-actually-bloody-like "Eucharist miracles(!)" ---- when that was not what Christ was speaking of much at all, or else he would not have added that His words were Spirit and Life, the flesh profiting nothing.
Well done!