You claimed the source was a historian. Do these last two paragraphs represent anything resembling objectivity?
The Catholic Church survived the Arian crisis, and so it will survive the present one. For our part, it is our duty to remain faithful to the unchangeable teaching and Sacred Tradition of our Holy Catholic Church, and not to compromise the Faith in any way with the present trend of Liberalism and Modernism sweeping the Church worldwide.
"What happened over 1600 years ago is repeating itself today, but with two or three differences: Alexandria today is the whole Universal Church, the stability of which is being shaken, and what was undertaken at that time by means of physical force and cruelty is now being transformed to a different level. Exile is replaced by banishment into the silence of being ignored; killing by assassination of character." --
I called the author a propagandist because the author reveals an undeniable bias in what he writes. I felt duty-bound to bring that to your attention, since you used him as an objective arbitrator in our dispute. Or at least that is what I thought the purpose of your post was when you described him as an historian. I don't think I was being dishonest. I think the author is dishonest. Here:
The saint even consecrated orthodox bishops outside his own diocese, acting out of necessity for the good of the Church.
There are no details cited by the author to back this claim up, but it sounds very similar to the actions of Mr. Lefebvre (and the reasons Lefebvre gave) and to the undiscerning reader a parallel may be drawn between the two cases. But until I am shown that St. Athanasius defied any pope's direct prohibition concerning the consecration of bishops, I will consider the SSPX claims that St. Athanasius and Lefebvre are similar as propaganda.