There is too often on these threads a tendency to present the teachings and writings of any institution, denomination or individual as easily and completely summarized in a single line or paragraph. That line of thinking converts the truth into a malleable commodity void of any integrity. Unless the discussion is within the context of a group of equally learned persons these exercises are nothing better than the poster putting their own words into the mouths of the saints and the Early Church Fathers. This is such a case.
The attempts to present St. Athanasius as a proto-Protestant or to portray his works as having never addressed the Church or Tradition by only presenting quotes carefully chosen for the Protestant ear is dishonest. Equally dishonest is the attempts to then impeach these same Saints when their further writings are shown to Paint Ptrotestantism in a bad light.
Lets explore what St. Athanasius said about the exclusive of Scripture over Tradition and about the Church to see if you still want to champion him:
But after him (the devil) and with him are all inventors of unlawful heresies, who indeed refer to the Scriptures, but do not hold such opinions as the saints have handed down, and receiving them as the traditions of men, err, because they do not rightly know them nor their power" Athanasius, Festal Letter 2 (c. A.D. 350).
'...and it is seemingly and most irreligious when Scripture contains such images, to form ideas concerning our Lord from others which are neither in Scripture, nor have any religious bearing. Therefore let them tell us from what teacher or by what tradition they derived these notions concerning the Saviour?...But they seem to me to have a wrong understanding of this passage also; for it has a religious and very orthodox sense, which had they understood, they would not have blasphemed the Lord of glory.' Athanasius, De Decretis 13 (c. A.D. 350).
'Of course, the holy Scriptures, divinely inspired are self-sufficient for the proclamation of the truth. But there are also numerous works composed for this purpose by blessed teachers. The one who reads them will understand the interpretation of the Scriptures and will be able to gain knowledge he desrires.' Athanasius, Gentes 1 (c. A.D. 350).
'But what is also to the point, let us note that the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning was preached by the Apostles and preserved by the Fathers. On this the Church was founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is, nor any longer ought to be called, a Christian.' Athanasius, Ad Serapion 1,28 (c. A.D. 350).
"Wherefore keep yourselves all the more untainted by them, and observe the traditions of the Fathers, and chiefly the holy faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, which you have learned from the Scripture, and of which you have often been put in mind by me." Anthony of Egypt, Vita S. Antoni 89, (c. A.D. 350).
"Not a year goes by when they do not invent new creeds, which they are the first to condemn by replacing then with others that are no more acceptable. Their entire plan is to destroy Catholic truth while seeming to defend it. They are Pilate sending Jesus Christ to be tortured while seeming to spare Him. The only thing they fear is that they will be recognized for what they are, formal enemies of Jesus Christ."
"Only one or the other of the following can be true: Either [1] they think as we do; and if so, why write so much? This vast number of writings serves only to perpetuate disputes, hamper the faith of simple men, create difficulties over well-established principles, and make us conjecture on things we had never thought about. Or [2] they think otherwise; and if that is the case, why not say so? It would be better to declare frankly that they adopt the doctrine of Arius and his impiety; at least we would not be taken in by them, and recognizing the venom, we would flee at the sight of the serpent."
"But that is precisely what they avoid saying. They are afraid to touch the question; deliberately changing the subject, they will speak to you about everything except whatever directly concerns the heresy. Why, then do they affect a way of speaking that is different from their teacher's? Why do they eternally wrap themselves in ambiguities and deceitful interpretations, if not because it is impossible to defend him? Therefore, by deliberately suppressing the words of Arius, they show by that fact alone that they are convinced of the impiety of his doctrine."
"The time has come to fight for the truth against heresy. Our enemy does not always attack us in the same manner. Martyrdom does not consist only in refusing to offer incense to idols. There is also a martyrdom of the conscience, which consists in not violating the Faith." - Warning by Saint Athanasius (Cf. Encyclical Letter to the Bishops of Egypt and Lybia)
Peace be with you
While Athanasius applauds tradition, it is still the same tradition which was taught in the scriptures, according to Athanasius...
The only thing Catholic in your post was your insertertion of the capital 'C' on the word catholic to make it look like good ole Athan was one of your boys...
There is nothing in your post that shows Athanasius leaning toward your religion...But quite the contrary...
"Wherefore keep yourselves all the more untainted by them, and observe the traditions of the Fathers, and chiefly the holy faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, which you have learned from the Scripture, and of which you have often been put in mind by me." Anthony of Egypt, Vita S. Antoni 89, (c. A.D. 350).
I think it is dishonest to portray early Christians as Roman Catholic. I think it is equally dishonest to disqualify anyone BUT Roman Catholics from quoting the early church fathers - especially since "they" don't belong to "Catholics" or "Protestants" but comprised the body of Christ in the first centuries of the faith before temporal power, wealth and prestige crept in and corrupted what began in truth. As to why I quoted Athanasius, here is what I prefaced the comment with:
That's a misconception of what the term sola scriptura means. The term - understood and taught by Jesus, the Apostles and the early church fathers - means that the Holy Scriptures are the authority by which truths of the faith must be measured against. Athanasius, for example said:
No matter how the doctrines of the faith are verified today, it is unquestionable that those first church leaders understood, accepted and expected that anyone who thought they had authority to teach Christian doctrine had better have solid backing from the Word of God. When Athanasius disputed with heretics of his day, from where did he base his arguments? He used Scripture to dispute the false teachers who claimed to have Scriptural warrant and he proved them wrong BY the same Scripture. At one time, Scripture WAS the authority respected by the leaders and doctors of the faith alike and no "tradition" was acceptable that did not have Holy Scripture behind them. What presents itself today as THE church, is NOT comparable to the church in Athanasius' day. Something changed. My contention is the Scriptures were placed in a subordinate role to whatever "tradition" the self-identified infallible magesterium favored and that would be something Athanasius would be at the forefront disputing even today if he were here.