The so-called "Church Fathers" are a common talking point for Catholics. There is no doubt, especially as the centuries progressed, that the Church "Fathers" occasionally had some similar views to modern Catholics. At the same time, it can't be denied they also had different views, often sounding very "Protestant". Nevertheless, whenever they have the opportunity, Catholics cite the Church "Fathers".
Now, to some degree, it is acceptable practice to study the Church "Fathers". After all, we study pastors in our time, why wouldn't we do the same with other prominent historical figures? But there comes a point where they can turn into idols. It's easy to forget, especially when we are seeking validation for our deeply cherished views, that the Church "Fathers" were fully human, and did not even have the luxury of divine inspiration.
The Bible, by contrast, does. According to both scripture (2 Timothy 3:16-17), and even the Catholic Church, the Bible is inspired by God. It's not just the personal opinions of its human authors, they actually spoke as God moved them to speak with His Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:19-21).
Because of the Bible's divine inspiration, there can be no doubt about its authority, only its proper interpretation. The good news is, being a collection of intelligible sentences, the latter is not too hard to discern. Indeed, more often than not, the default answer to "this is what the Bible says" is "well, actually, we have the authority to tell you what it really means".
In an effort to back this up, Catholics selectively quote the Church "Fathers". But the question is, why? Does it not make sense to argue from the greater to the lesser? The Church "Fathers", much like any modern preacher, are merely giving their interpretations of scripture. Sometimes, in doing so, they give some very "Protestant"-sounding theology. Tertullian of Carthage, for example, wrote "They thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, It is the spirit that quickens; and then added, The flesh profits nothing — meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. In a like sense He had previously said: He that hears my words, and believes in Him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life. Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, We ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith." (On the Resurrection of the Flesh, Chapter 37).
Tertullian is not alone. It is quite common for the Church "Fathers" to either agree with "Protestant" theology, or at least disagree with Catholic teaching. I could, if I was so inclined, write a number of articles on Church "Fathers" who held "Protestant" positions. But at the end of the day, I feel like this would be as silly as basing my articles on the teachings of Billy Graham.
Think of it this way: A lawyer may well know the law, but he has not authority over the law. If he interprets it for you, it is because he has spent more time studying it than you. But suppose he says something antithetical to, or even on top of the law. And suppose you actually happen to know it. These days, you can actually read the law for free online. So you can say to this lawyer "ok, this is what the law says, but you've told me this. Why?" "Shut up you dopey old fool, I'm a lawyer, I have the authority to interpret the law." Well ok, guess who's not getting hired...
Do you see, then, why it is so unbelievably illogical to cite a Church "Father", or even multiple Church "Fathers", over scripture itself? They can be helpful, because they might have a perspective you don't. "Iron sharpens iron", as the Proverbs 27:17 says. But they will always be lesser authorities, and therefore it is nothing short of absurd to try to use them to respond to scripture.
As human beings, the Church "Fathers" had many true and false beliefs. Many, if not all of them, were faithful Christians, just like us, seeking to exegete the scriptures and learn God's truths, which they then taught to the best of their abilities. But they lacked divine inspiration, and were by no means inerrant. Scripture, by contrast, is the inspired, infallible word of the Living God, and can therefore be fully relied upon.