One thing that is clear to me is that there is no single doctrine of the Trinity. There are at least 3 or 4 different ways to understand the Trinity. I say "at least" because there are many subdivisions of these basic types. So, when someone is described as "anti-Trinitarian" this does not mean much to me. Which understanding of the Trinity is he against?
https://trinities.org/blog/podcast-239-dr-beau-branson-on-the-monarchy-of-the-father-part-1/
While I agree there are diverse interpretations of the Trinity, I would propose that there are only two basic conceptualizations rooted in the Nicene Creed and Quincunque Vult (the Athanasian Creed) which are held by the mainstream churches whose members account for the majority of Christians*:
Firstly, we have the Western filioque concept, in which the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, which is in the numerical majority, owing to its use by the Roman Catholic Church and a minority of Sui Juris Eastern Catholic Churches, and by extension, nearly all Protestant churches that recite the Creed.
Secondly, we have the original Nicene concept, in which the Spirit proceeds from the Father; this is reverently adhered to by the Eastern Orthodox, who thought they had settled the matter with the Photian Synod, at which Rome agreed to drop the Filioque, but Rome changed its mind at a subsequent council. It is also strictly followed by the Oriental Orthodox and by the Assyrian Church of the East and the Ancient Church of the East I think St. Photius was in the right on this point; the canons of the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon prohibit modifying the Nicene Creed or introducing a new one. Interestingly a large number of the Sui Juris Eastern Catholic Churches do not use the Filioque, and I have read somewhere the Roman church considers the Filioque erroneous if recited in Greek, and thus its use in the Hellenic tongue is prohibited, presumably due to the subtle semantic nuances of that language compared to the more concise and exacting language of Virgil and Cicero. For these reasons I enthusiastically support the movement in Protestantism, which was active in the Episcopal Church and elsewhere a while back, to Drop the Filioque.
On this point I feel pedantically obliged to denote that the Athanasian Creed is neither Athanasian nor a Creed, but rather a Creedal canticle, and it exists in an Eastern Orthodox version that lacks the filioque, and this is included in A Psalter for Prayer, which is my favorite Psalter, the Coverdale corrected against the Septuagint, published by Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville, whereas the Apostles Creed is a baptismal creed predating the Nicene Creed and could be regarded as “grandfathered in”; there are also several creedal hymns like Te Deum Laudamus, composed by Saints Ambrose and Augustine following the latter’s baptism, Ho Monogenes, which is sometimes attributed to Emperor Justinian but is almost certainly the work of St. Severus of Antioch, and the Eucharistic hymn Haw Nurone, composed by St. Jacob of Sarugh; it delights me to consider these three creedal hymns originated in three of the great Apostolic languages, Latin, Greek and Syriac. I should seek out a creedal hymn originally written in Coptic, Armenian, Georgian or Ge’ez to square the circle (any suggestions on the Coptic or Armenian front
@dzheremi and
@ArmenianJohn ? There is the Coptic confiteor ante communionem chanted by the priest, although this is very similiar to a common Eastern Orthodox confiteor ante communionem, and I am not sure if hieratic chants should count as creedal hymns.
However, as someone who wants ecumenical reconciliation, provided we get a Pope like Benedict XVI, who ought not to have resigned, I am what Metropolitan Kallistos Ware calls a “filioque dove” rather than a “filioque hawk.” The filioque had legitimate origins - there was a nasty quasi-Unitarian heresy that erupted in Spain, where the Greek canons of Ephesus and Chalcedon may not have been known, perhaps in part due to the tendency of Rome to define its own canons outside of the ecumenical synods relied on by the Greek Church. Thus the bishops implemented the filioque in a bid to suppress it, which worked, even though it was obviously the wrong tool for the job. However, the filioque, if annotated in parentheses so as to clarify that it merely referred to the Biblical fact that Christ sent the Holy Spirit into the world as our Paraclete (just as the Creed earlier declares how the Spirit sent Christ into the world by miraculously impregnating our most glorious Lady, the Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary), this would fix the theological problem, since the status of God the Father as the unoriginate Source of the Godhood, the literal Divine Essence with Whom God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are one, and from Whom the uncreated and coequal Son is begotten and the uncreated and coequal Spirit proceeds, would be upheld.
*Divergent views may exist among those members due to poor catechesis and poor preaching; I was left confused about the exact nature of the doctrine of the trinity in my childhood, specifically, how the three divine persons came to be, since neither the mainline schools (usually Methodist or Presbyterian in my childhood, for reasons of tradition or convenience), nor the LCMS parochial school I attended was interested in preaching about Trinitarian theology or explaining the doctrines of the unoriginate Father, the Son begotten before all ages, the eternal procession of the Spirit, or indeed the concept of eternity itself**.
Rather, the churches were more interested in preaching sermons on moral theology, in some cases loosely connected to the lectionary, where one was used, and the Religious Education component of my parochial curriculum was more focused in teaching sola fide and the law vs. gospel, and oddly, an Antiochene-literal interpretation of the Pentateuch, which was presented in an enjoyable manner, so I did not mind that, and the pastor during , although I did like that school a lot; I did a year in public school and it was horrifying in comparison).
In my case it was actually an Anglican church on Trinity Sunday that finally clarified the matter for me in my adolescence, but I always believed in the Trinity and had an intuitive grasp on it, for example, I understood it was three divine persons who were one Godhead, and that Jesus Christ as the Son of God was fully God and fully Man, and that the Holy Ghost was also God; the one thing some people in religious authority, at my school or at one or more of the churches I attended, did right in my childhood which prevented me from forming a completely heterodox interpretation of the Trinity, or rejecting it, was using the phrases “God the Father”, “God the Son” and “God the Holy Ghost.” Coincidentally, Holy Ghost was how we usually referred to the Holy Spirit in my youth, in part because older hymnals and service books were still in service in many of the churches I attended; I don’t think the LCMS church where I attended parochial school switched to the Blue Hymnal until 1990 or 91, and the Methodist church I attended was still using the 1964/65 Book of Hymns and Book of Worship until 1994.
** A lack of education on the concept of eternity gave me a terrible fear of eternity, whether that consisted of Heaven, Hell or annhilation, which I overcame in part due to an early encounter with the Eastern Orthodox, but that is a subject for another thread.
.
