Oh, this is excellent, and illustrates exactly why Athanasius is such a champion of the Tradition.
He participated in the Council of Nicaea and vigorously defended the validity and authority of its doctrines: thus he was a defender of Sacred Tradition.
He was the author of the Athanasian Creed (Link), a basic statement of the Catholic faith (as he says in its first line)(tip'o'the hat to the Orthodox as well); he defended the Incarnation and the Trinity; thus he was a contributor to the Sacred Tradition.
And as Bishop of Alexandria, he had received his ordained ministry as a hierarchical successor to the Apostles by the Sacrament of Holy Orders; he officiated at the Sacred Liturgies of the Church; he ministered the Sacraments to his flock; he was in communion with the other Orthodox Patriarchs and protected by the Popes. In all these ways-- hierarchical, liturgical, sacramental, and ecclesiastical (including being in union with the the Bishop of Rome) he was a living link of the Sacred Tradition.
That somebody would say he was a proponent of "Sola Scriptura"--- in the Protestant sense--- shows a basic exegetical error in interpreting his writings.
Athanasius, as a teacher of the Catholic Faith, would accept no doctrine which was contrary to Scripture. To that, we all agree: that's his point. He is not saying there can be no Councils, no Creeds, no Popes, no developments of doctrine and worship which further extend and apply the truths of Scripture.
If that were the case, it would make nonsense of his entire life's work. As I illustrated above, Athanasius received, developed, defended, and lived this very same Tradition of which we speak: a Tradition which is at every point one with the truths of Scripture.
Thus, Athanasius' whole life tells us that Sola Traditio is inseparable from Sola Scriptura: in the Orthodox and Catholic sense that it there is no part of Tradition which is not derived from, or which is contradicted by, Scripture.
A "carnal" or "corporeal" body means a body that weighs, say, 150-220 pounds, that is composed of cells, tissues, organs, and systems, that maintains an internal temperature of 98-99o F., that carries out continuous cardiovascular, respiratory and metabolic functions, etc.
Obviously the consecrated Elements of the Eucharist are not physiologically the same as a carnal body: Christ's, or anybody else's. (That's why Athanasius comments, "How many would his body have sufficed for meat that it should become the nourishment of the whole world?" In other words, if this were just a matter of chowing down on Christ's mortal remains, it might have been food for maybe a couple dozen cannibals, but not for the millons who in fact receive Him.)
The Eucharistic Body of the Lord has none of the visible, tangible, or measurable characteristic of a physiological body. It is, nevertheless, Christ's true Body, as Athanasius says:
Thank you so much for giving me the pleasure of sharing this Sacred Tradition defended and lived so profoundly by the great Athanasius.
"You shall see the Levites bringing loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ." "Let us approach the celebration of the mysteries. This bread and this wine, so long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine - and thus His Body is confected."
Athanasius of Alexandria -
"Sermon to the Newly Baptized" 373 A.D.
“as Athanasius says:”
Do you have any other quotes to support this one? The citation is properly read “Sermon to the Newly Baptized, in Eutyches”. The actual sermon itself is lost, and what we have of it, or don’t have of it, is taken from Eutyches at nearly 600AD.
At around that time, a LOT was going on! You say that Athanasius was in communion with the Pope. Can you tell me, which one?
The Pope at Alexandria, the Pope at Antioch, or the Pope at Rome? All three, according to Gregory the First, possessed the throne of Peter:
“Whereas there were many apostles, yet for the principality itself, one only see of the apostles prevailed, in authority, which is of one, but in three places. For he elevated the see in which he condescended to rest, and to finish his present life. He decorated the see, to which he sent his disciple the evangelist, and he established the see, in which, although he intended to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since there fore the see is of one and is one, over which three bishops preside by divine authority, whatsoever good I hear of you, I ascribe to myself. And if you hear any good of me, number it among your merits, be- cause we are all one in him who says, that all should be one, as thou, O Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they may be one in us. — In the Eulogy’ to the Bishop of Alexandria
Theodoret references the same belief when he places the “throne of Peter” under the Bishop of Antioch:
“Dioscorus, however, refuses to abide by these decisions; he is turning the See of the blessed Mark upside down; and these things he does though he perfectly well knows that the Antiochene (of Antioch) metropolis possesses the throne of the great Peter, who was teacher of the blessed Mark, and first and coryphæus (head of the choir) of the chorus of the apostles.” Theodoret - Letter LXXXVI - To Flavianus, Bishop of Constantinople.
He was the author of the Athanasian Creed (Link), a basic statement of the Catholic faith (as he says in its first line)(tip'o'the hat to the Orthodox as well); he defended the Incarnation and the Trinity; thus he was a contributor to the Sacred Tradition.
Very much so. His creed is the most definitive Christian Creed. And, as you have very well pointed out, he was a most orthodox Catholic and promulgated the Faith very very well.