I don't see how pursuing this avenue of theology will make one more humble, more holy, or to abide in Christ. IF it was so critical - that misunderstanding the inner workings of the Trinity were so important for the common man to come to God - then Christ would have been more clear in the Apostolic Traditions passed down through the Apostles - and as a result, we wouldn't have to rely on speculative theology. I just don't see this distinction that you make done by the Church Fathers until AFTER the Nicean Creed.
If the issue was addressed by an Ecumenical Council and defined, then we have a dogma, something that we have religious assent of. Until then, one is legitimately able to hold either your OPINION, or the Latin Church's OPINION. Even IF the East has "always" believed it "everywhere" doesn't mean that the West has...
Perhaps this is an issue that will be addressed if the East and West get together in an Ecumenical Council. But until then, the Spirit isn't making it clear enough to the entire Church, so it is not time to make such "declarations" that Rome is in error...
Regards
Jo, I am not talking about the inner workings of the Trinity. I think I've said that before and I thought I was clear on that.
As for the Roman system crashing down, clearly it hasn't because it is held together with a type of theology which is, so we believe, at base in error. Protestantism is in error in a number areas, but that hasn't crashed down either nor has Mohammadenism.
"I don't see how pursuing this avenue of theology will make one more humble, more holy, or to abide in Christ."
But indeed it has, for a couple of thousand years in the East. What you seem to posit is a systematic theology which requires a submission, even of the Fathers, to the Magisterium. Orthodoxy won't accept that, Jo.