Concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures; nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee of these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures....In these articles we comprehend the whole doctrine of faith….For the articles of the Faith were not composed at the good pleasure of men, but the most important points chosen from all Scriptures, make up the one teaching of the Faith….This Faith, in a few words, hath enfolded in its bosom the whole knowledge of godliness contained both in the Old and New Testaments. Behold, therefore, brethren and hold the traditions (2 Thes. 2:15) which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your hearts....Now heed not any ingenious views of mine; else thou mayest be misled; but unless thou receive the witness of the prophets concerning each matter, believe not what is spoken; unless thou learn from Holy Scripture....receive not the witness of man."
How is it that those anti-scripturalists always ignore writings like these in their polemics. As the words of the church fathers reveal, the earliest tradition of the church was sola scriptura. It was a universal [catholic] understanding and to deny that is to show oneself to be truly anti-catholic.
In the spirit of Christian charity, it is in accurate and misleading to use the term "anti-scripturalist". Traditional Christians simply believe that revelation is provided both through scripture and the traditions of the church. If you attended a traditional mass, you would probably be surprised to hear significantly more of scripture than you would hear in most protestant services. If you disagree with traditional Christianity, you should still be both accurate and charitable in describing it.