Perhaps it would be worthwhile if the Protestants themselves could agree on what sola scriptura means. It is the ever shifting target promulgated by man which, when all the obfuscation is done, means "if it ain't in the Bible, I don't need to believe it (at least to get saved)".
Since
you are the one using, and attacking, Sola Scriptura I believe it is incumbent on you to define just what it is you are attacking.
In any event, I will accept a few words of wisdom from Augustine.
ST. AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO* (354-430)
"In those things which are clearly laid down in Scripture, all those things are found which pertain to faith and morals." (De Doct. Chr. 2:9)
-------------------------------------------
"Whatever you hear from them [the Scriptures], let that be well received by you. Whatever is without them refuse, lest you wander in a cloud." (De Pastore, 11)
---------------------------------------
"All those things which in times past our ancestors have mentioned to be done toward mankind and have delivered unto us: all those things also which we see and deliver to our posterity, so far as they pertain to the seeking and maintaining true religion, the Holy Scripture has not passed over in silence." (Ep. 42)
------------------------------------------
"Whatever our Saviour would have us read of his actions and sayings he commanded his apostles and disciples, as his hands, to write." (De Consensu Evang. 1:ult)
-----------------------------------------
Let them [the Donatists] demonstrate their church if they can, not by the talk and rumor of the Africans; not by the councils of their own bishops; not by the books of their disputers; not by deceitful miracles, against which we are cautioned by the word of God, but in the prescript of the law, in the predictions of the prophets, in the verses of the Psalms, in the voice of the Shepherd himself, in the preaching and works of the evangelists; that is, in all canonical authorities of the sacred Scriptures. (De Unit. Eccl. 16)
------------------------------------------
"This Mediator [Jesus Christ], having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is called canonical, which has paramount authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves."
St. Augustine, quoted from his City of God, book XI, Chapter 3.
===========================================================
Oh brother. Now what do you want? 15 Patristic passages declaring the necessity of holding fast to the traditions of the Church? Or some Patrisitc passages declaring that anyone who interprets the Scripture outside of apostolic Churches is bound to have the wrong understanding of Scripture? You should know better than to take one sentence from St. Augustine and treat it as if it were the only thing he had to say about the relationship between Scripture, tradition, and the Church. The simple fact is that the Patristic literature contains a vast array of claims about Scripture, about tradition, about apostolic succession, and many other germane issues. Even the Patristic passages you give here are not sufficient to show that the Fathers believed "if it ain't in the Bible, I don't need to believe it (at least not to get saved)". This is the principle I am opposing. The citations you give that are most similar to sola scriptura as I have defined it here,are from Augustine and the De Pastore, which do not differentiate between the material sufficiency of Scripture and the formal sufficiency. If Sola Scriptura -- understood as I have formulated here-- were what the Fathers unanaimously held, then why, in Adversus Haereses Bk iii, does St. Iranaeus appeal to a rule of faith, formulated in the Churches having apostolic succession, to oppose a global counterinterpretation of Scripture put forward by the Gnostics. The Gnostics had a complete counterinterpretation of Scripture such that ever verse put forward by Iranaeus was interpreted quite smoothly in terms of Gnostic cosmology. The Scriptures, at best, were considered materially sufficient, but membership in an apostolic Church was considered a necessary condition for rightly understanding the text. Clearly, Iranaeus did not think the Scriptures identical with the rule of faith, but appealed to an apostolic tradition to secure a certain interpretation of Scripture against heretical challenge. Whether that rule of faith was to be found in Scripture could not be determined by Scripture alone, for it was the meaning of Scripture itself which was in global dispute.
Sorry, I did not relaize that all the passages were from Augustine. In any case, it does not change many of the points I just made, since it is unanimous consent of the Fathers that matters, not any one Father in particular. Besides, perhaps you should give some of quotes from Augustine that talk about the imprtance of reading the text as the Church reads it.
Besides, Augustine accepted the perpetual Virginity of Mary. Was he contradicting himself by holding both Sola Scriptura and that Mary was ever Virgin?