But, their interpretation is wrong because it denied what had ever been believed.
No, that is not what he says. Their interpretation is wrong because it was an untrue handling of Scripture, using Scripture as a mere cover for evil intent, which never was to purvey truth, but to act as Satan and beguile us away from the truth. Their conflict with the opinions of the saints is not a
cause of error but an
effect of error, resulting "because they do not rightly know them [the Scriptures] nor their power."
And who does He cite as representative of these saintly opinions? An apostle, with full apostolic authority, and not lesser men: "Therefore
Paul justly praises the Corinthians, because their opinions were in accordance with his traditions." And Paul's traditions were not some extra-Biblical data stream known only to certain select insiders, but are God-breathed truth recorded for us openly in Scripture, so it is the same thing being pointed to in both places, Scripture!
So, not to wear out the NASA meme, but there's still a problem here for using Athanasius to support an equality of authority as between Scripture and councils, such that obligations of Christian belief could be created that had no basis in Scripture. He does not equate them or put them on the same level at all, but gives Scripture logical precedence in determining truth, in perfect keeping with the Protestant position. Which position does not exclude the advice and input of godly teachers, but does not elevate them beyond persuasive authority, as opposed to binding authority.
This distinction also holds in the practice of law. A case occurring in another jurisdiction, or in the same jurisdiction at a lower level, may be brought forward as persuasive evidence of the true interpretation of the law, under an appeal to reason and not raw authority. But such case law is not binding on the court. Only case law in the same jurisdiction and from a superior court can act to bind the decision of the court.
So we see this principle in Athanasius, as here, from the link I provided earlier:
Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faiths sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrines so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture.
The Supreme Court of divine truth is that which has been spoken by God, Scripture. That is the only
binding authority, and that is the "sufficiency above all things" of which he speaks. But as he says, councils may be needed, and it may help to consult the patristic writings, even though they are not a canon of Scripture, and therefore not anything but persuasive. And in his one example, the Nicene Bishops, does he describe their voice as independently authoritative, or does he relate their derived authority back to its true foundation? The latter, as the force of their words comes only from honest readers being "reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture."
Peace,
SR
The Orthodox Church holds Holy Scripture as the highest and ultimate authority. It became quite clear, quite early that Scripture was easily twisted and perverted. The guardians and teachers needed more than words on paper.
Their connection to the Apostles was what established their bona fides. So a Bishop could say "I teach the interpretation that Polycarp who was taught by John taught."
If there are two different interpretations and both say they are right and the Holy Spirit confirmed it to them and their opponent is of the devil...what then?
Therefore, Ignatius' admonition that nothing be done without the Bishop.