Since St. Irenaeus was not a Trinitarian was/is he damned? These are some of the statements made by St. Irenaeus that I believe put him at odds with the Creed of Athanasius: The Trinity Delusion (St. Irenaenus)

Here are the threats of the Creed: Athanasian Creed

If he was not damned, or even excommunicated for his failure to adhere to the Catholic God/Gospel, why not?
By its very nature, a dogma1 makes its deniers officially heretics (ipso facto at the least) only because of its dogmatic, unequivocal nature as taught unambiguously as the faith of the Church, by unanimity of the Fathers, or a General Council, or the Pope ex cathedra.2 Before something is made a dogma, it is simply be, for lack of a better word, unofficial official doctrine—the status quo of the Christian Church, to a more or less unanimous degree.
For example, before the Trintiy was dogmatized (against the hersey of Arianism), it was licit to have differing views on the precise nature of the relationship between the Father and the Son, as no teaching in any official, universal capacity was as yet made so as to be denied obstinately (and thus make heretics of its deniers). But you couldn't deny that the Son was God in general without being clearly having excised yourself by apostasy from the faith, the heart of which is the incarnation of God—Immanuel.
Paul didn't go around teaching that Jesus was homoousios with the Father in the city of Jerusalem, because no one had to be taught this in order for them to accept the doctrine of the divine Son of God—not because it wasn't true: an Arius would have to come along in order for such to be later insisted upon as a necessity.
Dogmas don't work retroactively. You can't bind someone pre-Nicaea to a precise Nicene understanding of the Trinity as though they had this precise understanding available to them. Cf. John 15:22.
So no, Irenaeus, and any Pre-Nicene Father was not a heretic as incurring guilt or excommunication, but of course they could have held that opinion which is objectively heretical, which are different things.
But even according to the Pre-Nicene leniency described above, Irenaeus didn't reject the divinity of Christ (e.g.) anyway.
E.g.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, I
The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: . . . one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father ‘to gather all things in one,' and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of *the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess; to him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all...&quot;

Critics of the Trinity will conflate the identification of the Father as the only true God with that the Son or Holy Spirit are therefore obviously excluded from being God (since there is only one), but this ignores that a Trinitarian a) must accept that the Father is the only true God, since Scripture states it, and more importantly to the fallaciousness of this objection 2) believe the Son and the Holy Ghost ontologically owe their origin and nature to the Father, the only true God—this is what makes them God. The Trinity is in fact a lot closer to Modalism than anything else, since the distinction of the Persons is one that is not of nature, meaning all three Persons are equally eternal and equally have proper to them the ineffable, unique, and only divine nature: the onotological order of 'Father,' 'Son,' and 'Holy Ghost' are only ones of opposition of relation, not of order of coming into being—as soon as there is a Divine Nature, it is the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. The Father is the Divine Nature. The Son is the Divine Nature. The Holy Ghost is the Divine Nature. They are ineffably distinct in this way, but not as to their Nature—to be יהוה. They are the same God, but not the same person.
This is why the Trinitarin Creed doesn't say 'We believe in one God, the Father, and one God, the Son, and one God, etc.' But &quot;We believe in one God, the Father, Maker of all things visible and invisible. .... and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God... etc.' only later to declare the divinity that flows from this Sonship of necessity and by its very nature.
This is perhaps synonymous with the objection that 'the Son is not God, He is the Son of God.' But this is a strawman of the Trinity if used as an objection thereto. This is because the Son is only called God because He shares one and the exact same nature with the Father, not because He is the Father (is 'God' in that Unitarian sense). That is 'Son of God' and 'God' are synonymous precisely because the Son is God by virtue of His nature being that of the Father, not because 'the Father' and 'the Son' refer to the same person. They do not: the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Ghost refer to the same God. Any time when the Father is called 'the only true God' it speaks of the fact that the Son and the Holy Ghost are ontologically distinct from this their [ontological] Origin, which can as being such be spoken of as 'the only' of its kind.

1 As used as a technical term, the word dogma means a doctrine declared by the Church in such a capacity as to bind all believers to its acceptance (usually/almost without exception in contradistinction to heretical versions of the doctrine, or its denial). It doesn't mean that before it enoyed this necessity of belief it was not true, or not believed.
2 The objective infalliblity of the doctrine in such instances simply means that since Christ promised His Church will not be overcome by the gates of Hell, not overthrowing of the faith will happen—which would have happened if a doctrine was taught in these respective capacities by necessity (e.g. the Pope binding the Church to a specific understanding of Scripture/doctrine would require all to believe it, hence it must, if Christ's Church really never will fail absolutely, be true and dogmatically so).