I see from your later post that you go beyond your coreligionists in accusing St. Photius the Great (hymned with St. Gregory Palamas and St. Mark of Ephesus as one of the Three Pillars of Orthodoxy) of heresy rather than mere schism, so perhaps you erroneously thought I was lumping an "Eastern heretic" with the Orthodox as is your the wont of Latin apologists. Nothing of the sort: St. Photius' Orthodox critique of the heretical filioque is still quite current, whatever our "liberals" who seem willing to join your confession in papering over the seriousness of the error may think.
What is odd about the filioque is the nature of the disute--that the holy spirit came from both the father and the son was traditional christian belief, a part of trinitaian orthodoxy upheld against every eastern variation of the monophysites. What made it controversial was its insertion by the Roman church into the nicene creed in order to make this point clear to the newly converted tribes of the west, some of whom who had been arians and did not understand the trinity.
But to Photius the insertion of the filioque as a stick with which to beat the Roman church, claiming it to be heretical. And as I stated in my other post eventually arranged a council to deny the addition of the filioque to the creed, and to approve expansion in constantinople's ecclesiatical power.
The final evidence against photius is that after he had been excommunicated for the second time he was also banished by the byzantine emperor on grounds of treason.
Regardless, I do not see any refutation of Soloviev in your posts. But I do appreciate you giving them some consideration and look forward to engaging you again.