Hardly. For those who are not Catholic, but who have read the early patristics in context, this statement is hardly acceptable.
The reason I say, "...who are not Catholic..." is because often, Catholics read the patristics with a specific purpose of making these writers support Catholicism. Hence, all kinds of statements get pulled out of their natural context and employed as "gotcha" quotes to try to make it look like these writers held to Catholic dogma when, if you look at their statements fully, they did not, and often even were saying the exact opposite.
In other words, Catholic apologists often treat the patristic writers in the same way that the NY Times and WaPo were trying to get people to treat the Sarah Palin e-mails - sift through them, isolate the one sentence that says what we want, and publicise it to the exclusion of everything around it.
Interestingly, some of the very early writers (e.g. Ignatius) seem, when read in context, to actually support the sort of local church beliefs of Baptists. It's when you start following these writers chronologically that you see the later ones drifting towards recognizably Catholic dogmas. It's a centuries long drift towards apostasy and error.
In a sense, relying on the patristic writings to give a complete, or even a fully accurate, picture of early Christianity is problematic. In the secular realm, there are all kinds of ancient writers whose works we know of from reference by other writers, but do not know anything about or only have a few scattered quotations, because they were lost in the process of time. It was a common thing back then, before printing presses and mass publication.
Same thing applies to early Christian writings. What we have is only a portion of what early Christians probably actually wrote. In some cases, such as Papias, we know they wrote things that are now lost. Further, the ones we do have generally tend to be the ones that Catholicism approved of at later dates, and hence whose monks and whatnot bothered to copy and pass on.
This is why it's so important to rely on the BIBLE, rather than tradition, to derive our doctrine and practice. God promised to preserve His Word (Psalm 12:7-8, Matt. 5:18, Luke 21:33, I Peter 1:24-25, etc.). There is no such promise for the patristic writers, however. They were just guys with opinions who wrote things, some of which were true, and many of which were false.
Well, no, sorry, you aren't, and they don't.
When you can explain for me how Ignatius' rejection of heretics who "confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again." (Smyrnaeans) and his description of the Eucharist as the "medicine of immortality" (Ephesians) is compatible with Baptist dogma, you will have begun to make your case. (Then you can move on to explaining how Irenaeus' description of Mary as the "New Eve" is consistent with Baptist dogma.)
Until then, perhaps you should stick with the ridiculous notion that Ignatius, who knew Apostles personally and died for the faith, is a heretic, while you, yourself, twenty centuries later, are more orthodox. While ludicrous, that's at least logically consistent with what Ignatius actually wrote.
Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid. -- Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, AD 110