On the contrary, it is highly questionable. St. Athanasius lived and taught in a time BEFORE a Canon of Scripture and relied 100% on the Traditions of the Church to develop the Creeds and that later served as the test for Canonicity.
The term "Roman Catholic" is a fabrication of the Reformation, However Rome has always been the seat of the successors to St. Peter the first Pope and the See of the Catholic Church.
Peace be to you.
As has been explained NUMEROUS times on these threads, there was NO question about what was Holy Scripture that was Divinely-inspired through the Apostles as well as those who were chosen by God for His revelation. That a "canon" happened later had NOTHING whatsoever to do with what was held, studied, circulated and obeyed AS God-breathed Holy Scripture. In Athanasius' day, the Traditions of the church WERE the truths found in Scripture. Why else did he repeatedly appeal to them? Another salient point, Athanasius was NOT infallible and just because I quote some of his or other ECF's writings doesn't mean I accept ALL of them. Even your own magesterium picks and chooses which ECS's teachings they allow - some even were later declared heretics, but it still doesn't stop them from being "useful".
The term "Roman Catholic" is a fabrication of the Reformation, However Rome has always been the seat of the successors to St. Peter the first Pope and the See of the Catholic Church.
The fabrication is all y'all's. That myth especially!
Sorry, try as you might, you don't get to keep Athanasius...
It was already posted where Athanasius claimed that for tradition to be legitimate, it has to be backed up by scripture...
Your position is an epic fail, according to Athanasius...