Firstly I am not a writer of Orthodox Official materials. Anything I might write would be irrelevant.
That is why I have posted numerous OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS FROM OFFICIAL ORTHODOX SOURCES.
Second I already posted you three such articles on Augustine! (You may recall refusing to read one!)
Here's one from the vatican read the footnotes!
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm
Here's a slew more!
http://aggreen.net/filioque/filioque.html
http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/filioque.html
http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Filioque
"In the West, St. Augustine of Hippo taught that the Spirit came from the Father and the Son, though subordinate to neither. His theology was dominant in the West until the Middle Ages, including his theology of the Trinity. Other Latin fathers also spoke of the Spirit proceeding from both the Father and the Son. While familiar in the West, this way of speaking was virtually unknown in the Greek-speaking, Eastern Roman Empire."
http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Augustine_of_Hippo
Despite these acclamations, most of his works were not translated into Greek until the 13th century (?) and some Orthodox Christians identify errors in his theology—especially those in his Triadology which gave rise to the Filioque addition to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed—and regard him as being one of the major factors in the Great Schism between the Church in the East and in the West. Thus, there are those among the Orthodox who regard Augustine as a heretic, although there has never been any conciliar condemnation of either him or his writings.
Augustine's teaching on the Trinity is in line with the teachings of the Church. Namely, that the Father and the Son's relationship bring about the Third Person, the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father THROUGH the Son. There is ONE divine principle within the Godhead. That was initially the issue with the Orthodox disagreement with the Filioque. The Orthodox felt that the West believed that there were two divine principles moving within the Godhead. There isn't. BUT, realize that "the Father and the Son" is more accurate then just "the Father" because the Spirit doesn't proceed ONLY from the Father. The Son MUST be involved in this procession. While "And" is not the best word, it is NOT heretical, but it explains that BOTH persons are involved in the procession of the Holy Spirit, both within and without the Divine Godhead. Christ AND the Father send the Spirit to the Church as well. Whatever one does, the other is doing as well.
What the West says in the Nicean Creed is NOT heresy. It is a misunderstanding of terminology between us and the East. But if you can get past the name-calling and huffing and puffing that we left the Church and are heretics, you will see that we don't believe in TWO divine principles within the Godhead, just as the Coptics have now said they were misunderstood in the useage of words.
On the subject of heresy. Be aware that heresy is finally official when the Bishop of Rome says it is heresy. Don't believe me? Consult the history and writings on such matters. Rather than making assertions, I will let the Church Fathers speak for themselves. If two opposing factions call each other heretics, who decides whom is correct and who is heretical? The decision for such matters was refered to Rome, not Constantinople, not Alexandria, not Antioch, not Jerusalem. Over and over, bishops write to ROME. Even Bishops in Alexandria. Interesting. WHY? History doesn't beat around the bush. All one must do is read the Development of Doctrine and how something becomes called a heresy. It was always ASSUMED that Rome was the ultimate guardian of the faith. Ultimately, bishops would complain about heretics directly to Rome. Consider reading the Great Ecumenical Father, Saint John Chrysostom, or perhaps, St. Athanasius. Maximus the Confessor. When faced with a great heresy, these men turned to Rome. This cannot be denied. The issue for you is "WHY"? If he was merely an equal, why would heretics even CARE about Rome's decision? Think about it. Even the heretics KNEW that Rome's decision was final. There are numerous letters available written to the Pope from heretics trying to get their viewpoint declared as orthodox. When declared heretics, it was the POPE who forgave the heretic WHEN the man recanted.
On this subject, one must ALSO be aware that just because there is a disagreement in theology doesn't make something "heretical". You will have to show that something was "believed by everyone, for all time, in all places" and then refuted. This is not the case on original sin. The East and West didn't discuss the nuances of disagreements - thus, one would be hard pressed to say that there WAS an "official" DOCTRINE of what original sin was. Just because the East comes to believe that original sin is one thing doesn't make it true for the entire Church. The universal Church's determinations on the matter are first made at the 2nd Council of Orange, and then at Trent - in reference to Pelagius and the Protestants. WE hadn't discussed our disagreements - so how could either one be called "heretics" on the matter? This is how theology is fleshed out - bishops come together to determine what exactly the people believe. Was this done regarding Original Sin BEFORE the Schism? Not to the degree we are discussing. Thus, it isn't correct to call Catholics heretics over this matter.
While familiar in the West, this way of speaking was virtually unknown in the Greek-speaking, Eastern Roman Empire."
This is an example of the self-important, pompous, and arrogant attitude of claiming one's opinion over and above another's opinion without exploring the other's point of view. Yes, that's fine that it was "virtually unknown" in the East. And the West? Frankly, I didn't realize that the Greeks were the center of docrinal determination. What goes on in Constantinople is how it will be done throughout the universal church? Ridiculous.
There are a number of things that the West did and the East had "not heard of it" and vice versus. SO WHAT??? That's the point of getting together to flesh out what the UNIVERSAL CHURCH believes, not the Church of Constantinople. What arrogance. When was the Church of Constantinople ever determined to be the center of the Catholic Church - the ultimate authority for determining proper doctrine? Not the first millenium, I will assure you of that. Look at the major heresies of the Church - they come from the Emperor and his court. St. John Crysostom, Athanasius, Maximus, Flavian, and so forth. All orthodox bishops who were either banned, exiled or killed by the Emperor and his flunky bishops. We are to listen to them for doctrinal purity??? They tried to slip that in at Chalcedon - the Pope saw it and promptly removed it. The Greeks didn't like that. But it was never questioned, "Leo, how dare you do that. Who are you?". No. Rome had spoken, the case was closed. Rather than calling people heretical based on YOUR opinion, have you considered exploring the ENTIRE CHURCH'S opinion on the matter? Have you considered that in the West (yes, we were part of the Church then...) we DID believe just that about original sin? One can only pray that the Orthodox who are seeking to come to a reunion with Rome will have a more open idea of what the Church "believes", rather than thinking that their opinions ONLY represent the will and faith of the Church. I leave you with that thought.
Regards