Athanasius said to his flock, who used to meet in the wilderness, "They have the churches, but ye have the Faith. Which is the greater possession?"
or, do facts matter?
As you will be unable to draw applicable parralels, can you at least post the heresies the modern Popes have promoted. Please list the heresies taught by the most recent Ecumenical Council, the heresies in the Universal Catechism etc.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia...
Athanasius had refused to come, and Liberius on receiving new letters from the East had at once excommunicated him, and was now anxious to communicate with the Arian party. Duchesne thinks this letter was written in exile at the beginning of 357, and that Liberius had really sent an embassy (in 352-3), suggesting that Athanasius should come to Rome; now in his exile he remembers that Athanasius had excused himself, and alleges this as a pretext for condemning him. It seems inconceivable, however, that after heroically supporting Athanasius for years, and, having suffered exile for more than a year rather than condemn him, Liberius should motive his present weakness by a disobedience on the saint's part at which he had testified no resentment during all this stretch of time. On the contrary, St. Hilary's comment seems plainly to imply that the letter was forged by Fortunatian, Metropolitan of Aquileia, one of the bishops who condemned Athanasius and joined the court party at the Council of Milan in 355. Fortunatian must have tried to excuse his own fall, by pretending the pope (who was then still in Rome) had entrusted this letter to him to give to the emperor, "but Potamius and Epictetus did not believe it to be genuine when they condemned the pope with glee (as the Council of Rimini said of them)", else they would not have condemned him to exile, "and Fortunatian sent it also to many bishops without getting any gain by it". And St. Hilary goes on to declare that Fortunatian had further condemned himself by omitting to mention how Athanasius had been acquitted at Sardica after the letter of the Easterns against him to Pope Julius, and how a letter had come from a council at Alexandria and all Egypt in his favour to Liberius, as earlier to Julius. Hilary appeals to documents which follow, evidently the letter "Obsecro" to the emperor (already mentioned), in which Liberius attests that he received the defence by the Egyptians at the same time with the accusation by the Arians. The letter "Obsecro" forms fragment V, and it seems to have been immediately followed in the original work by fragment VI, which opens with the letter of Liberius to the confessors, "Quamuis sub imagine" (proving how steadfast he was in his support of the faith), followed by quotations from letters to a bishop of Spoleto and to Hosius, in which the pope deplores the fall of Vincent at Arles. These letters are incontestably genuine.
*Now, there is NO controversy as to whether or not Pope John Paul II excommunicated lefevbre
Athanasius informs us that while the Church was in peace, and the congregation at prayers, many bishops, and among them Liberius, a herald of the truth, were torn away and driven into exile for no other cause than their opposition to Arianism; that, furthermore, they did not subscribe the calumnies which were uttered against him (Athanasius). This was written after the return of Liberius to Rome; but, if he had, as alleged, departed from the Nicene faith, of what use would his testimony be, or what weight would his name add to the cause of Athanasius? Would not the latter, on the contrary, have mentioned the unfortunate fall of the one who, up to a certain time, had defended him? And if he was, by the subscription of the Pope, cut off from the communion of Rome, would he not have mentioned the fact? This is no doubt the view taken by the forgers of the "history of Arianism" attributed to Athanasius, wherein the fall is related at length. It has been contended by some editors that the last numbers of the Apologia above mentioned are not authentic; but the learned Vincenzi maintains that the reason given by those editors in support of their opinion—viz., that the Apologia was completed before the exile of Liberius—is of no force; and he shows that the work, which would be incomplete without Nos. 89 and 90, must, therefore, have been written after the return of Liberius to Rome, because it speaks of the exile. But this is not the place to reproduce the arguments this learned writer employs. In Sulpicius Severus, Historia, lib. iv., c. I 2, is preserved an encyclical of Liberius, published after the Council of Rimini, in which he anathematizes Arianism and exhorts all who fell, whether by weakness or by violence, to return at once to the bosom of the Church. But in the Fragmenta several such letters are extant bearing the name of Liberius; these are all heretical in tone, while the former is orthodox in every particular. All, however, admit the authenticity of the orthodox letter. How, then, could Liberius have the audacity, had he written the heretical letters, to set himself up as a teacher, and a reprover of the fallen, without at least retracting his former words, and apologizing for the scandal he had given? No apology appears; on the contrary, the tone is commanding and, therefore, indicative of the authority of innocence. Had he himself been guilty and among those who "suffered detriment to their faith by force or fraud," the world must have known it. If Rome became Arian all the bishops knew it; and before the chief bishop could command their respect, he owed the Catholic world an apology for this greatest of scandals.
Let us go a step further, and assert that, had he fallen, volumes of episcopal reproaches and countless decrees of protesting councils would have deluged his fated throne, and plunged him into a sea of disgrace,—the roar of whose waves would at this distant day deafen our ears, and make a defence of Liberius impossible. Two inferences follow,—first, Liberius did not, could not, have fallen by subscribing the Sirmian formula and the condemnation of Athanasius; secondly, all letters which bear the name of Liberius, and represent him favoring the Arians, are forgeries
*Davies made MANY errors. TONS of them. Accepting forgeris re the putative excommunicationof athanasius is just one of many he made
IOW, you accept forgeries to rationalise your schism which is based upon demonstrable lies directly contrary to the Teachings of Jesus and the Teachings of Dogamtic, Infallible Councils.
I have told you repeatedly and shown you repeatedly the schism breeds insanity and destroys both soul and intellect