[cloudmountain]

So called "Apostolic Tradition" is from Scripture. The ECFs are pretty consistent on that issue. e
Part of "Apostolic Tradition" is the Papacy. The emergence of bishops and cardinals is Apostolic Tradition and that is not in Scripture.
https://www.scripturecatholic.com/oral-apostolic-tradition/
ORAL = not written in Scripture. Even Jesus relied on it. The reference above gives several examples of Jesus using non-Old Testament preaching.

At Trent, when Rome dogmatically declared its canon, it did not include any of the writings from any of the ECFs they hold so dear.
That is telling.
Why is that telling?
The FOUR WITNESSES were JUST at the very beginning of the Christianity. THEIR treatises were instruction and history FAR closer to Jesus.
*Clement of Rome: 35 AD
**Ignatius of Antioch: 108 AD
***Justin Martyr: 100 AD
****Irenaeus of Lyons: 130 A.D.

The Council of Trent was held to combat the heresy of the Reformation...and thus called the COUNTER REFORMATION. And that was in 1545-63. Why would they have to cover the SAME ground when they felt compelled to combat the newer heresy of the Reformation?
If they HAD covered the same ground it would've been redundant.

Two completely different events for two completely different times in history with 1,400+ years in between.

.

Maybe we are talking at cross purposes.

[Luircin]

Counter-Reformation was formed to defend the heresy that the Reformation was trying to combat.

As you can see from the early church fathers, sola fide was believed by Christians until Roman Catholicism abandoned Christ.

Don’t blame the Reformers for believing what the Apostles actually taught and not Rome’s distortions of the faith.