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.
I have no desire to argue. We all worship in imperfect knowledge and with imperfect ability to describe the Divine. That's why the wise orthodox Fathers of the Unidivided Church left the Mystery of God to remain a Mystery, but at the same time to proclaim a universal truth: that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father and the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father, the manner and the "mechanisms" of this being unknown to us.
The Filioque was inserted to combat Arianism, but also because some Fathers specualted as to "how" the Trinity "operates". That in itsef is not heresy but speculation. We can still speculate on it and are nowehere nearer to knowing it, and Arianism is no longer an issue, so why bother? It's the indsertion of it into the Creed in the 11th century, contrary to everything the Unidivided Church established as Orthodox prior to that that, that remains the unrepenetent offense.
The Church spoke in one voice and said: this is the Creed, this is what we believe; nothing can be added or subtracted to it unless it is done by another Ecumenical Council. Amen. Your Church decided otherwise and now we are supposed to "debate" this? If you steal something, it is wrong even if your motives were noble. Just do what Graves said: Repent and you will be forgiven.
Of course we dropped Greek, we could not speak it any longer!
And how many Germans understood Latin in Luther's time? But the Roman Church insisted, as it does to this day that Latin is the universal language of the Church and should be favored. There is a whole group of "trads" who insist on it. How many Roman Catholics speak or even understand Latin today? You don't see double standards here? Apparently not.
Latin was still the language of university instruction until as late as the 18th cent
Little good did that do to the multitutes who sat in RC churches and listed to something they didn't understand. And it took the Vatican 200 years (middle of the 20th century) since the 18th c. to admit that a language other than Latin is okay? The East knew that for 2,000 years. The only reason Greek was the language of the Church is because it was the only liturgical language of the Gentiles, sufficiently developed to express litrurgical complexities, but the East never poposed that Greek was the "universal" languge of the Church, as your Church did for Latin.
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
Redress? Please specfy what did the Greeks add and or subtract form the Faith. What are our innovations and additions that need to be redressed?
We are not the only guardians of Orthodoxy. We never claimed that. There are multitudes of Greek Fathers who glorified the Pope and western Fathers. The Greeks honor many Popes, in fact and the Church of the West was condiered fully Orthodox in liturgy and everything esle. Iconoclasm was defeated thanks to the Orthodoxy of Rome at that time. How can you say that the Greeks find fault but no merit in the West? That is completely false! If you want the list of issues cited by the Greeks that needed a redress, read the Patriarchal Encyclical of the Eastern Fathers of 1895 (in fact Agrarian posted in today along with the series of previous ones).