The praxis of Adversus Praxeam : Tertullian ’ s views on the Trinity

Tertullian wrote Adversus Praxeam (Against Praxeas) in ca. 213 CE, therefore ante-Nicene (Evans 2019:18). This treatise is regarded as his best work on the Trinity (Litfin 2019:89). Many scholars – some of whom will be discussed in this article – have already commented on this treatise. The aim of this article is to shortly discuss Adversus Praxeam (AP) within the context of a 3rd-century Carthage, occupied by followers of the Catholic Church (‘Christians’), the New Prophecy (a heresy), and Monarchianism (another heresy) (cf. Evans 2019:viii).


Introduction and background to Tertullian
Tertullian wrote Adversus Praxeam (Against Praxeas) in ca. 213 CE, therefore ante-Nicene (Evans 2019:18). This treatise is regarded as his best work on the Trinity (Litfin 2019:89). Many scholarssome of whom will be discussed in this article -have already commented on this treatise. The aim of this article is to shortly discuss Adversus Praxeam (AP) within the context of a 3rd-century Carthage, occupied by followers of the Catholic Church ('Christians'), the New Prophecy (a heresy), and Monarchianism (another heresy) (cf. Evans 2019:viii).
The destruction of Carthage by Rome took place in 146 BCE. A century later, Julius Caesar rebuilt it and populated it with Roman citizens. The flourishing Carthage then became the capital of Africa Nova, which was a Roman province and which included the provinces of Africa Vetus and Numedia (New Advent 2020a). Quintus Septimus Florens Tertullianus was born in 155/160 CE in Carthage and he also died there in 220/225 (Carl 2009:1). Tertullian was therefore a man from Latin Africa. He was able to write in both Greek and Latin. He first practised as an advocate cum legal consultant and became a Christian in ca. 197 after which he started writing treatises in defence of his faith (Evans 2019:2) -therefore being an apologist (cf. Litfin 2019:81). According to Jerome (De Viris Illustribus 53; ed. Schaff 1885c:883) he was also a presbyter.
While Christian Latin literature was not yet produced in Rome, it was Africa that started to produce the literature (Evans 2019:1). Johannes Quasten refers to Tertullian as 'the creator of ecclesiastical Latin' (Quasten 1950:249). Tertullian was the first to use specific theological terminology such as Trinitas (e.g. AP2 and 3; Migne 1844:157-158;ed. Schaff 1885aed. Schaff :1337ed. Schaff -1338cf. Hillar 2012:190-220;Quasten 1950:286) and unam substantiam in tribus cohaerentibus (only substance in three coherent and inseparable [Persons] -AP12; Migne 1844:168; ed. Schaff 1885a:1358) within the context of his debate with Modalism (Haykin 2017;cf. Carl 2009:1, 3;Holmes 2012:69-70), still being used by Latin-speaking churches today. Allison (2011:237;cf. McGrath 1998:62) argues that Tertullian was an African, living in Carthage during the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE. He grew up a pagan, then became a Catholic Christian, after which he moved on to the sect of Montanus, referred to as the New Prophecy in this article, where he became the leader in Carthage. While he was still a pagan, he studied and became an advocate and when he was converted to Christianity, he became a prolific writer of Christian treatises, mostly apologies in Latin. There was a heretic movement in Carthage with Praxeas as the leader, and Tertullian opposed this heresy, especially on the level of the Trinity, as most of the Christians in Carthage -the socalled simplices -were impressed by that heresy. Being ante-Nicene, Tertullian's arguments should be understood within his time and in light of the Catholic Rule of Faith, as he was very orthodox. The question may well be asked whether something new can still be said about Tertullian or about his Adversus Praxeam? This article is a critical appreciation of Adversus Praxeam with the aim to gain more insight into Trinitarian's point of view, specifically with reference to the Trinity. Hopefully, in this way something 'new' can be said about a well-known Church Father and his well-known treatise.
http://www.ve.org.za Open Access Tertullian's doctrine on the Trinity 'became the foundation for the church's definition of the Trinity'. 1 However, it could be that he did not invent that terminology, but that he inherited it from a predecessor or even predecessors (Evans 2019:2).
Quasten states that '[e]xcept for Augustine, Tertullian is the most important and original ecclesiastical author in Latin' (Quasten 1950:247), called the 'Origen of the West' by Sellers (1953:187). He was more influenced by the later Roman Stoicism than by Platonism, which mostly formed the basis for the theology of that time (cf. Norris 1967:99;Tieleman 2020:163 (Quasten 1950:247).
Although this movement ('sect') was in fact initially only a schism from the Catholic Church (CNA 2021), it was soon to get resistance, as early as 177, when Prisca was excommunicated by some local councils in Asia Minor (NWE n.d.). The first Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 325 (par. 7) already referred to Montanism as a 'sect' (St Michael's Depot 2006). However, it was only in the 4th century that Constantine the Great and other emperors stood more firmly against this movement but seemingly never effectively declared it a heresy (NWE n.d.).
1. Olson (1999:95) compliments Tertullian here and in the same breath accuses his successors by stating that Tertullian has already 'settled [the doctrines of the Trinity and Christology] hundreds of years before the rest of the church settled them'. This compliment, however, fits Tertullian only halfway, as it will become clear in this article, while the accusation is almost correct.
2. Quasten (1950:247) argues that it was in 207. Hand in hand with the New Prophesy, Tertullian (who was a married man) then started to attack the church for being unspiritual and lax with reference to his moral code. Although his doctrine later on became the basis for orthodox Christian theology, it could be regarded as 'heretical' when Tertullian wrote it, as it was part of the New Prophecy (McGowan 2006:437). 8 However, whereas there was no real difference between the Montanism and Catholicism regarding the Trinity, the views of Tertullian, specifically in AP were in fact orthodox (cf. McGowan 2006:440). This is why Christine Trevett refers to him as a 'Montanist Catholic' (Trevett 1996:69), as he was doctrinally orthodox.
Evans (2019:4) 9 divides Tertullian's works in three groups, namely apologetic, controversial and disciplinary, with AP belonging to the second group of five treatises. 10 In these works, Tertullian attacked certain heresies, while defending the traditional Christian faith within these contexts. Although AP is classified as 'controversial' by Evans, in fact here Tertullian showed the minor differences between traditional Christianity and Montanism as it manifested at that time in Carthage.
The work and terminology of Tertullian was already used by Church Fathers of his time, like Hippolytus (dealing with the Noetic heresy) and Novatian (Evans 2019:19). These two Fathers knew each other and at a certain stage Novatian became the leader of their conservative group, while Hippolytus was the spokesperson (Evans 2019:19). 11

Praxeas and his doctrine
Praxeas was one of the earliest teachers of Monarchianism. Evans (2019:10) asserts that the name Praxeas 'could be a rather unusual Greek word for "busybody,"' therefore being a pseudonym (CPL 1999), or a nickname for most probably Calixtus (Callistus), who was a Roman deacon (Litfin 2019:89) The doctrine of the Monarchians distinguished between 'a human Jesus-Son and a divine Christ-Word-Father' (Evans 2019:14). This established the monarchy (sovereignty of God) for them, as they were, according to them, not two beings, but only one. It was therefore God who was born from a virgin and who confessed himself to humankind as the Son of God. At the cross, God commended his spirit to himself, as he acted to be dead, but he was not dead in reality, although he raised himself on the 3rd day (Evans 2019:14).
Evans (2019:8) refers to 'three facts' with which the Christians of these times were confronted: (1) There is a divine unity, (2) Jesus Christ as the Son of God forms part of that unity and should therefore be worshipped as part of the unity, and (3) Jesus is 'in some sense' not identical to the Father. The Monarchians claimed that the combination of the latter two 'facts' was in opposition to the first (which was what they proclaimed), pointing at a duality of gods. They therefore denied the third 'fact' in order to establish the second one so as to equal Jesus to the Father so that he could be worshipped.
By the end of the 2nd century, Monarchianism got some support in Alexandria and in Libya, but more in Rome and Antioch. This Christian movement was later called Sabellianism and was a reaction on polytheism as they claimed that there was no distinction between the Father, his Son and the Holy Spirit (Evans 2019:6). They based their belief on Judaism, which was a monotheistic religion. As Christianity had Judaism as its basis, they thought that it was also supposed to be strictly monotheistic -one deity, one unity. The Father and his Son could therefore only be different expressions of one and the same being, meaning that there was no personal distinctions between them (Litfin 2019:89). However, fact was that Christianity was introduced with the birth of Jesus and from the start he was likened or equalled to God the Father. This included the Holy Spirit. Suddenly there were three Persons who were claimed to be God; suddenly there was a Trinitarian blessing and people started to pray to Jesus while they were supposed to pray to God (the Father).
The Monarchian school or movement (there were two of them -Evans 2019:9) with which Tertullian was in conflict began with Noetus (Heraclytus?) and included Sabellius. Adolph Von Harnack (1961:166) coined the term 'Modalism' for this 2nd-century doctrine, which referred to the Trinity as consisting of 'three modes or aspects of one divine existence' (Evans 2019:10). Although this movement called themselves 'Monarchians' (Evans 2019:10), the Greek Fathers called them 'Sabellians', as Sabellius was the person who has put this doctrine in its philosophical form, supplying its metaphysical basis (Evans 2019:12). The Latin Fathers, on the other hand, called them 'patripassians' because they have identified the Father and the Son to such an extent that they believed that it was the Father who suffered and died on the cross.
Biblical texts on which they based their doctrine are Isaiah 45:14 (Surely God is with you, and there is no other; there is no other god); Romans 9:5 (the Messiah, who is God over all); John 10:30 ([Jesus answered,] I and the Father are one); and John 14:9 (Jesus answered…Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father).
Tertullian discussed each of these texts in AP.

The composition of Adversus Praxeam
Tertullian wrote this treatise shortly after he became part of the New Prophecy in 213 (Quasten 1950:284). Evans (2019:5) argues that this treatise of Tertullian has set forth the 'official doctrine of the African Churches on the holy Trinity and the Incarnation'. It needs to be added that it was ante-Nicene, 13 and therefore not fully in line with the decisions, which were taken at Nicaea in 325 CE. It was therefore aimed at the 'modalist teaching in its unmetaphysical Noetic form' (Evans 2019:18). Tertullian aimed this treatise at Praxeas, accusing him of Trinitarian heresy and also because he (Praxeas) opposed the New Prophecy, specifically in Rome, being responsible that the bishop of Rome condemned Montanus (cf. AP1 -ed. Schaff 1885a:1335).
The first chapter introduces the treatise to its reader, describing how Praxeas' teaching reached Africa and Rome ex Asia (Migne 1844:155). Tertullian then, in AP2, describes the traditional faith in the Trinity in order for the reader to take note of the point of departure for this treatise (Migne 1844:156-157 Tertullian supplies an 'easy solution' to this by referring to the God 'who cannot be seen' -who is the Father -and the God 'who can be seen' -the Son (AP15 -Migne 1844:172-174). 14 The Son has mediated the Father from the creation of the world (AP16-19 -Migne 1844:174-179). Therefore, everything that has been known of God from the beginning was mediated by his Son, also known as the Word of God (cf. Jn 1:1). It was therefore the Son who was seen and not the Father (also mentioned in AP24 -Migne 1844:186-187). However, the Son became invisible after the days of His flesh (AP14 -ed. Schaff 1885a:1352).
In the next chapter, Tertullian referred to the doctrine of the Monarchians being based on their interpretation of the three texts: Isaiah 45:5, John 10:30 and John 14:9-10, leading to their conclusion that God is one (AP20 -Migne 1844:179).  -Migne 1844:190-192). Jesus was the Christ, the anointed, which means that someone (other than him) had to anoint him (AP28 -Migne 1844:192-193

The theology of Adversus Praxeam
Adversus Praxeam was written to counter Modalistic Unitarianism (the Monarchians) in Africa, in order to defend the then (Catholic) doctrine of the Holy Trinity. According to McGowan (2006), the: [C]entral purpose or argument of Against Praxeas is not the abstract articulation of Tertullian's understanding of God as Trinity, but opposition to a Monarchianism (also) probably focused specifically on the relation between Father and Son. (p. 444) In his argumentation, Tertullian usually followed a specific pattern: Firstly, a short historical narrative of the problem, then a modification or amendment of the exegesis/eisegesis being performed, followed by scriptural proof of his argument.
Adversus Praxeam cannot be regarded as a 'single sustained thesis', but rather as a set of linked arguments against a set of objections towards the Trinity (McGowan 2006:443). The arguments that Tertullian used against Praxeas were not self-fabricated but were his interpretations of the church's tradition of the day (Evans 2019:19). In the next section, the discussion of the theology of AP is divided under a few headings.

Defending the doctrine of the Holy Trinity 15
As has already been stated here, Tertullian has first used (coined) the term Trinitas within the context of his argumentation with Modalism, thereby indicating to them that God is one within the Trinity -the one does not exclude the other. This was over against Praxeas who contended that these two concepts exclude each other (cf. Carl 2009:3). Tertullian's 'doctrine of the Trinity and 15.According to Dünzl (2011:30), Tertullian was the first author to present a proper 'theology of the Trinity'.

God's οἰκονομία in Adversus Praxeam
Tertullian wrote his treatise against a heresy (Monarchianism) who presented the Father and the Son 'as different interlocutors' (Litfin 2019:89). This doctrine has infiltrated most of the church specifically in Carthage (cf. the simplices and psychici as given). His arguments are therefore not only aimed at the movement of Praxeas but also at the Catholic Christians who at that stage had a more Monarchian view than a Trinitarian one (cf.  (Migne 1844:163;ed. Schaff 1885aed. Schaff :1349. 20 This is therefore the way in which God has arranged himself as Trinity in his οἰκονομία (divine plan).
19.Although in its infancy, this was the forerunner of what was later called 'perichoresis.' Furthermore, in the same vein, Augustine used these metaphors of the fountain and the river, as well as the root and the tree trunk, arguing that although the Father and Son 'are of the same substance…they are not the same person' (Carl 2009:7; De Trinitate 9.17 ed. Schaff 1885e:702).
20. McGowan (2006:445) referred to this as an oracle. This 'temporal paternity and filiation distances Tertullian from the eventual Nicene consensus' (Litfin 2019:81) or was in fact a forerunner to the Nicene Creed.

Substantia and persona in Adversus Praxeam
Connected to the previous discussion of the Trinity is Tertullian's introduction of the two terms substantia (substance) and persona (presence). He used these terms '[i]n order to balance unity and diversity within the Godhead' (Litfin 2019:92). The use of these terms is an indication of the Stoic influence on Tertullian (mentioned here). Tertullian reduced the four categories of existence of the Stoics -substance, quality, disposition and relative disposition -to the two above-mentioned terms (Rist 1969:152-172).
Substantia comprises and refers to the existence and qualities of a 'single, discrete entity' (Litfin 2019:92), in this case 'one God' with all his qualities such as love, grace and omnipresence. 21 This existence and qualities include the Logos, the Wisdom and the Son. In AP2,13,19 and 25,22 Tertullian refers to the unity of the three Persons of the Trinity, stating that although they are distinct Persons, they 'share a common divine substance' (Carl 2009:2). The Son and the Holy Spirit are therefore one substance with the Father -joined with the Father in His substance (AP3 -ed. Schaff 1885a:1340), while the Son is derived from no other source but from the substance of the Father (AP4 -ed. Schaff 1885a:1341). When Jesus said that he and the Father are one (Jn10:30), he did not refer to a singularity of number, but to a unity of substance (cf. AP25 -ed. Schaff 1885a:1391-1392). When Jesus was on earth, he had two natures -therefore being both human and divine -and these natures were joined (not confused) in one Person (cf. AP27 -ed. Schaff 1885a:1396-1398).
In line with substantia is the Divine plan (οἰκονομία) of the Godhead, which Tertullian closely linked to the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity as part of the Rule of Faith (cf. AP2 -ed. Schaff 1885a:1337-1338). In God's οἰκονομία, the 'substance of the godhead is relayed to each person of the Trinity' (Carl 2009:2;cf. Prestige 1952:99-102). Tertullian used this term to indicate that God is three in his 'plan' ('economy') and one in his 'monarchy' (Carl 2009:3). Tertullian refers most of the time to the Trinity in an 'economical' way, therefore within the context of his relationship with his creation. By doing this, it becomes clear that Tertullian was a practical person who did not like to think abstractly.
With substantia and οἰκονομία in mind -in describing the Trinitas -it almost follows logically that Tertullian had to utilise a term, which would differentiate the three Persons of the Trinity in both their interpersonal relationship and their relationship with the creation -he therefore used persona 21. Daniélou (1977:363-364)  (presence). The three Persons relate in different ways to each other, while each has a unique relationship with the creation. Whereas substantia links the Persons of the Godhead to each other, persona refers to each Person's characteristics, which distinguish the three Persons from each other, as well as their relationship with creation (cf. Carl 2009:3). Whereas substantia indicates the rulership of God over his creation, his persona designates that the rulership intrinsically belongs to the Father, while the Son and the Holy Spirit are deriving it from him and mediate it to the creation. Although the Son and Holy Spirit 'have no less power or status than the Father, yet they are arranged or disposed at a lower grade' (Litfin 2019:93).
In AP13 Tertullian depicted the Trinity in the following way: Two Beings are God, the Father and the Son, and, with the addition of the Holy Spirit, even Three, according to the principle of the divine economy number…the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, and each is God. The distinction that Tertullian made between the Trinity and the three Persons is that the Trinity is one in condition, substance and power (status, substantiae, potestatis), while the Trinity is three Persons in degree, form and aspect (gradus, forma and species) (AP2; cf. Litfin 2019:95).

Monarchy and unity
The main challenge between Tertullian and Praxeas lay in the terms 'monarchy' and 'unity'. Tertullian interpreted 'monarchy' as different from Praxeas, in that he still understood it in its political sense as 'empire', equalling it to its subjective meaning of 'imperial authority' (Evans 2019:9). Tertullian claimed that there could be a delegation of authority to a second and even a third person without dividing the empire, as long as the delegated authority 'derives from one and reverts again to the one [which means that] the Father is the sole ἀρχή or origin of the Being of the Son and of the Holy Spirit' (Evans 2019:9). Tertullian utilised the oracle in AP8 (already given here) to extend the view of a three-fold analogy for the Father, Son and  2006:451). The bare fact of the situation was therefore that, during the early stages of the 3rd century in Carthage, and according to the view of Tertullian, it was only the followers of the New Prophecy that held on to the correct Trinitarian belief, as expounded by the then Rule of Faith.
The New Prophecy was therefore very close to the Catholic Christianity of its day, except that it was 'ethically idiosyncratic or sectarian' (McGowan 2006:447). 23 However, it is in fact impossible to refer to early 3rd-century 'Catholicism' as 'orthodox' because no 'coherent set of beliefs and practices' can be identified from this movement at that time -the implication is that 'Catholicism' was not fully defined as yet, and that the notion about the Trinity was not settled as yet (McGowan 2006:448). This also goes for the doctrines of the New Prophecy, although Tertullian's exposition is 'by far the most significant surviving "Montanist" articulation of a doctrine of God at any stage' (McGowan 2006:448).

The Paraclete or Paracletes in Adversus Praxeam
Apart from the fact that Tertullian also referred to the Holy Spirit as Paraclete and part of the Holy Trinity in AP, it also looks as if he had another Paraclete in mind. The term 'Paraclete' could also be the designation of or reference to a prophet of the New Prophecy during or before the time of Tertullian or it could be a direct reference to Montanus himself (who was already dead by that time, cf. as discussed). The prophets of the New Prophecy did not speak on behalf of the Lord, but as being possessed by the Lord (New Advent 2020b  (Wright 1984), which implies that his followers also started to refer Montanus as the Paraclete (Eusebius Historia Ecclesiastica 5.14; ed. Schaff 1885d:545). The problem with this is that, according to Montanus, the New Prophecy could add more truth to the teachings of Jesus and his apostles, therefore creating a 'richer revelation' (Britannica 2007 mostly is. In AP2 we read about the two uses of 'Paraclete' in one paragraph: In the course of time, then, the Father forsooth was born, and the Father suffered, God Himself, the Lord Almighty, whom in their preaching they declare to be Jesus Christ. We, however, as we indeed always have done (and more especially since we have been better instructed by the Paraclete [of the New Prophecy?], who leads men indeed into all truth), believe that there is one only God, but under the following dispensation, or οἰκονομία, as it is called, that this one only God has also a Son…[This God has] sent also from heaven…according to His own promise, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost. (ed. Schaff 1885(ed. Schaff :1337emphasis added) Here, the first reference to 'Paraclete' was seemingly to a specific prophet of the New Prophecy, most probably Montanus himself or his successor in Carthage. The first sentence refers to the belief system of which Praxeas was part.

'Peculiarities' in Tertullian's Doctrine
It is easy to point out and criticise specific 'errors' that Tertullian has made, as it is just as easy to accredit him for things that we read in his text, which are in fact not there. One must therefore remember that Tertullian's arguments were ante-Nicene, with a theology not developed as that of Nicaea a century later. Take the following for a good example: Jean Daniélou argues that Tertullian (being of the North African Church Father), does not reconcile 'the specific individuality of the persons of the Trinity and the ground of their distinct existence' (Daniélou 1977:364). In his theology, Tertullian has therefore not yet developed the fact that 'the distinctive individuality of each of the divine persons reflects eternal relationships within the Godhead' (Eguiluz n.d.:17). The implication is that, after Nicaea, the theologians would not argue that the Son was issuing forth by the Father and in this way 'for the sake of creation' became the Word of God (Daniélou 1977:364). The Son rather was there from the beginning in an eternal relationship with the Father, therefore not becoming the Son at a specific stage.
If we take a look at this treatise, we must admit that Tertullian was very orthodox and much in line with the Rule of Faith of his day. There are, however, two aspects where Tertullian's theology came really close to that of the Arians (a later heresy). However, this is not enough reason to argue that Tertullian was a forerunner of the Arian heresy. Firstly, Tertullian held that both the Son and the Holy Spirit were subordinated to the Father. 24 According to Tertullian, there is a 'stepwise ranking' in the Trinity with specific reference to the Persons' gradus, forma and species (discussed here) (Litfin 2019:95). He, however, differed from the later Arianism in that this was neither a temporal nor an ontological subordination. Litfin (2019:96) indicates another challenging point of view by Tertullian, where the latter argued that there is no 'relationship of fatherhood and sonship…intrinsic to the Trinity' as depicted by Tertullian. One could then easily say, from our point of view, that the implication is that the first Person of the Trinity, mostly called 'God', was only temporarily a Father. When reading through AP, it becomes clear that this was not Tertullian's intention.
Then there is the issue of the Son's -the Word's, the Wisdom'sexistence 'from the beginning'. Tertullian clearly stated that God's Reason -his Word -(AP5 -ed. Schaff 1885a:1342-1343), also called God's Wisdom (AP6 -ed. Schaff 1885a:1344) was with him before creation took place. Then Tertullian 24. Quasten (1950:286) ascribed this to the 'pitfalls of subordinationism'. Although the codified form of this doctrine seems to originate from Lucian of Antioch who was born after Tertullian died (in 240 CE), the origin of this doctrine can already be found with the Greek apologists before Tertullian (Quasten 1950:326). This would then rather make Tertullian a 'forerunner' of subordinationism than the other way round. This brings us to the key with which we should understand Tertullian: We must read his treatises 'in his framework' with the Monarchians and the simplices in Carthage on the one side and with the (Greek and Roman) polytheism on the other (Carl 2009:14). With this in mind, AP makes overall more sense.

Conclusion
Tertullian must have had many things simultaneously on his mind when he wrote AP. In Carthage he had 'Praxeas' the personification or persona of the Monarchians. There were also the simplices and the psychici who were supposed to be Catholic Christians, but both of these groups have fallen prey to the Monarchian doctrine. Then there was also the New Prophecy sect of which he was the leader. At this stage there were no pure definitions for Catholicism, Monarchianism or for the New Prophecy. One might even ask how 'carnally minded' the psychici were, or how simple the simplices were. The truth was therefore in the eye of the beholder, in this case Tertullian. He considered the Monarchians as direct opposition to the Rule of Faith, and he regarded the simplices and the psychici as falling prey to that new heresy -mostly unintentional. As the main difference between him (and his group) and 'Praxeas' and his followers concerned the Trinity, Tertullian had to elaborate on and criticise each point of his opponents' views in order to bring them back to what Tertullian claimed to be the truth about the Trinity. He found this truth in the Rule of Faith that has come down to us from the beginning of the gospel (AP2 ed. Schaff 1885a:1337). Tertullian was therefore a Montanist, but clinging to the Rule of Faith, being a Montanist Catholic, to be more precise, an orthodox Christian Montanist Catholic.