There was more than a difference of opinion. The Franks were accusing Greeks of having "omitted" [!] Filioque, and the Pope, backed by the same uneducated semi-iconoclast Franks, was pushing for unprescedented jurisdiction.
I am not asking you to accept the filioque or any other of the matter in dispute but rather to withhold judgment
Which part of the Creed don't you understand, dear friend? Let say simply: there is no Filioque in it! Not in the way we say it, not in the way St Photius, St Chyrsostom, St Maximos the Confessor said it, not in the way the Orthodox, east or west, ever said it; not even in the way it is inscribed on the silver plates in the Vatican, or the way it is recited in Greek in Rome to this day.
So what is there to debate? On what authority did the Church of the West insert it, clearly disobeying their own Patriarch's, Pope Leo III's, direct order to the contrary?
The division was caused by the actions of the Greeks, not the Latins
I see that the Franks are alive and well. What did the Greeks do to cause "division?" First, the Latins dropped Greek as the language of the Church of the first 300 years of Christianity, and went as far as to make Latin the "universal" language of the Church [!?!] Second, in the 5th century, Pope Leo I discovered Petrine supremacy.
Third, in the 6th century, the Church of the West inserted Filioque into the Creed, and the popes allowed but not publicly. Fourth, the Frankish sponsors of Rome were teaching errors in the East (Bulgaria), and were never censured by Rome.
They taught that married clergy is wrong, that the Greeks omitted Filioque, and so on. Then there were other innovations -- like denying the cup to the laity, unleavened bread instead of real bread, using fasting as punishment (penance), as evidenced in the local synod of Elvira as early as the 4th century, and so on.
What have the Greeks done to cause the "division" except that they refused papal intrusions into their jurisdiction? The Greeks dealt with their own heresies, and sought refuge with Orthodox Popes in Old Rome (i.e. +Maximos the Confessor), or condemned and excommunicated their own heretics.
Is it the fact that the Fourth Ecumenical Council ignored Pope Leo I's "annulment" of canon xxviii and subsequent Popes accepted it?
What is it that the Greeks did to cause division? They used the language of the Gospels, which the Latins exchanged for their own and then made their own "universal" at the first opportunity. It took them a thousand years to recognize what the Greeks knew all along, that the language of the Church need not be Greek or Latin.
Even when the Pope approved Slavonic liturgy in Greater Moravia, the Frankish storm trooper bishops there couldn't rest. They harassed and imprisoned St. Cyrill for his magnum opus and evangelizing of Eastern Slavs, because it wasn't in Latin!
The "division" the Greeks caused in your eyes is their refusal to submit to the whims of the Pope and all the innovations and additions he allowed. They did so, knowing that no man is infallible and that the faith of St. Peter was no more protected from error than that of any other Apsotle, because all were inspired. They successors are not. They are ordinary men.
They knew that Pope Honorius was proven to be a heretic and that if such a man possessed "ex-cathedra" powers the Church might as well be Monothelite today. So, they treated the Pope as the elder, but not as the ruler. Yet at Chalcedon, the papal legate called the Bishop of Rome the "ruler of the Church."
The Catholic Church is as much the Church of the Seven Councils as the Orthodox
You wouldn't recognize the Church of the West if you could travel back in time.
What are we arguing about here, the doctrine behind filioque or its uncanonical insertion in the Creed. If the former I refer you to my post to Graves above. If the latter I will grant that this was uncanonical but that is a far cry from heretical.
What did the Greeks do to cause "division?"
The action I was referring to was the act of anathematizing the entire West. We could both make a litany of complaints one against the other. I will freely admit that there were injustices committed by our side but do not presume to think that the Greeks were without fault. Whatever the crimes committed a thousand years ago (and let us not get started with battle of who was at greater fault) does not our Lord call on us to "forgive those who have trespassed against us?" If we cannot practice this among ourselves how can we presume to preach it to the world?
First, the Latins dropped Greek as the language of the Church of the first 300 years of Christianity, and went as far as to make Latin the "universal" language of the Church
Of course we dropped Greek, we could not speak it any longer! In a similar way the liturgy in Moscow is not celebrated in Greek but in Russian. As for it being a "universal" language, this is I admit a western concept. You must understand that despite the various local vernaculars in the West, Latin was still the language of university instruction until as late as the 18th cent. Latin is still used ceremonially in Oxford University, hardly a friend the Church of Rome.
The "division" the Greeks caused in your eyes is their refusal to submit to the whims of the Pope and all the innovations and additions he allowed.
No, the division was, and is, caused by the Greeks refusing to seek redress within the Church and presuming that they alone were the guardians of orthodoxy.