Jo, I think you are missing the point. The issue isn't so much our differing views of the Trinity, which in fact may be merely differing ways of speaking about the same thing, but rather a fundamental difference between the Latin Church (and the entire West I suppose) and Orthodoxy on the distinction between the Divine Essence and uncreated Divine Energies. So far as I can see, the West makes no distinction between Essence and uncreated energies. The implications of this are vast. Think for a moment what this means with regard, say, to the Eucharist, but any sacrament will do. The West actually believes in the ability of a human to participate in the Divine Essence through "created grace". Your theology of the sacraments, where the priest himself is the operative force, amply demonstrates this. The Latin Church's concept of the "Treasury of Merit", indeed its concept of the Magisterium itself are examples of this. The distinctions are not at all complimentary but in many ways mutually exclusive ways of looking at God and more importantly, understanding the reality of theosis or salvation.
The modern Orthodox theologian Christos Yannaras wrote a piece on this in 1975, here's an excerpt:
"The acceptance of this distinction between essence and energies means an understanding of truth as personal relationship, i.e. as an experience of life, and of knowledge as participation in the truth and not as an understanding of meanings that result from intellectual abstraction. It involves the priority of the reality of the person to every rational definition. In the infinite terms of this priority, God is known and communicable through His incomprehensible uncreated energies, remaining in essence unknown and incommunicable. That is to say, God is known only as a personal revelation (and not as an idea of active essence), only as a triune communion of persons, as an ecstatic self-offering of loving goodness. The world also is the result of the personal energies of God, a creation revealing the person of the Logos, witnessing to the Father through the grace of the Spirit, the substantiated invitation of God to relation and communion, an invitation which is personal and therefore substantiated heteroessentially.
On the contrary, the rejection of the distinction between essence and energy means exclusion of catholic-personal experience and priority of the intellect as the way of knowledge, reducing truth to a coincidence of thought with the object of thought (adaequatio rei et intellectus),28 an understanding of nature and person as definitions resulting from rational abstraction: the persons have the character of relations within the essence, relations which do not characterize the persons but are identified with the persons in order to serve the logical necessity of the simplicity of the essence. Thus, finally, God is accessible only as essence, i.e. only as an object of rational search, as the necessary first mover who is unmoved, that is pure energy, and whose existence must be identified with the self-realization of the essence. The world is the result of the first mover, even as the grace of God is the result of divine essence. The only relation of the world with God is the connection of cause and effect, a connection that organically disengages God from the world: the world is made autonomous and subjected to intellectual objectification and to (useful) expediency.
The problem of the distinction between essence and energies determined definitely and finally the differentiation of the Latin West from the Orthodox East. The West rejected the distinction, desiring to protect the idea of simplicity in the divine essence, since rational thought cannot accept the antinomy of a simultaneous existential identity and otherness, a distinction that does not mean division and fragmentation. For the western mind (expressed either with the directness of Thomistic rationalism or with the subordination of the patristic texts to a priori interpretations, as in the case of Fr. Garrigues) God is defined only in terms of His essence; whatever is not essence does not belong to God; it is a creature of God, the result of divine essence. Consequently, the energies of God are either identified with the essence, which is active (actus purus), or else any external manifestation of theirs is regarded as necessarily heteroessential, i.e. a created result of the divine cause.29
This means that, in the final analysis, the theosis of man his participation in the divine life,30 is impossible, since even grace, the sanctifier of the saints, is itself an effect, a result of the divine essence. It is created, even though supernatural, as western theologians have rather arbitrarily defined it since the ninth century.31"
Here's a link to the whole paper:
http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/yannaras.html
We call "uncreated energy" created, so there is a distinction between "Essence" and "energy".
I am not an expert on all this, but I see the Tridentine definition of sanctifying grace as "God's justice, not by means of which HE is Himself just, but by which He makes us just". This excludes the identity of Grace with the Holy Spirit. Romans 5:5 is cited: "The charity of God is poured forth in our heart by the Holy Spirit, who is given to us"
The Holy Spirit is the mediator of the love of God, which is given to us int he justification, and is therefore distinguished from Sanctifying Grace, as the gift from the giver...
Grace is, however, a participation in the Divine Nature. For example, the Church in the Liturgy says "Grant that by the mystery of this water and wine, we may be made partakers of His divinity who vouchsafed to become partaker of our humanity". In the Preface of the Feast of Christ's Ascension into Heaven "He was assumed into Heaven in order that we might be partakers in His divinity".
According to 2 Peter 1:4, we are elevated to participation in the Divine Nature. Other Scriptures cite indirectly that we participate in the Divine Nature by an elevation of our humanity to the Divine - BY GOD - as generation consists in the communication of the nature of the Generator to the generated. I am probably saying nothing new to you here. This is esp. noted by St. Athanasius famous quote "The Word became man, so that we might become God". The point of this is that Catholics believe the same thing, expressed differently. The West considers the sacraments ex opere operato, the sacrament is completed by the completed sacramental rite, because the priest is considered in the person of Christ. What is the action of the priest in the East?
The Treasury of Merits is based more on the Body of Christ and our participation as part of the Communion of Saints then in the Trinity's created vs uncreated energies.
All in all, an Ecumenical Council has not defined this area, so I don't see a right or wrong on this matter.
Regards