[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.

[OLD REGGIE]

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.

I don't believe you answered HarleyD's question completely. Though I agree with you on the historical reason for the split, I don't see how you can claim any kind of consensus of the Fathers concerning the split.

In fact, I have never seen an official list of these "Fathers". Have you?