[HarleyD]

I am not at all sure that the Latins have placed their Faith in an “institution”....I often think Protestant’s view of what we call The Church is very Roman, very “institutional”, to no great surprise frankly.

I know most don't like to think of the Church as an institution. The definition of "institution" is:
"the origination of the Eucharist, and enactment of its observance, by Christ." - Institution-dictionary definition #8

So I would have to say based upon this definition, the Church is an institution. Of course, I didn't look this up in Greek. ;O)

To point out that Eastern bishops fell into heresy and that The Church was pulled back from those heresies by the Bishop of Rome and the laos tou Theou, the people of God, is not exactly news, HD. Until the Great Schism, most heresy arose in the East and among Eastern hierarchs. Its one of the reasons we say that the floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops....How so? The Great Schism was about a number of theological points. Which Western theological point involved in the Schism do you think was within the consensus patrum and thus demonstrates Orthodoxy’s failure to adhere to the consensus.

The Great Schism was about a number of theological points as you've stated. The Orthodox are suppose to look at the consensus patrum, or "the consensus of the fathers". Not to be flippant but I suppose it depends on which consensus of which fathers. If the Latin Church all agreed on the filique and not the Orthodox, then where is the consensus?

I would never say that the schism represented a failure of the east. I happen to agree on the eastern interpretation of the filique. Instead my point is the schism illustrates how consensus are not reached-not who was right or wrong.

[Kolokotronis]

“If the Latin Church all agreed on the filique and not the Orthodox, then where is the consensus?”

The Fathers weren’t behind the filioque, HD. It was a relatively early local council in Spain. Rome consistently condemned the notion for centuries to the point where the Creed without the filioque was engraved on the doors of the Vatican, but eventually an “infallible” pope got marching orders from Charlemagne, who for reasons best known to him thought the filioque was a good idea, and it got inserted in the Creed. Its not patristic, HD, though some expost facto apologetics for it look for patristic justification.