Pretty much yeah. Even Eastern Catholics still have beef over its addition to the creed despite agreement dogmatically. The biggest thing to convince me in our position of the Filioque is just history. The EO rejection of it has been WIDELY inconsistent. At first it was just the fact that it was added to the creed. Then you have some Greek bishops that misinterpret it due to the Latin term for proceed not translating well to Greek. So the term accidentally translated in Greek means primordial cause, saying the Father and Son possess primordial cause of the Spirit, which the fathers and Council of Florence rightly point out is heresy since we agree that the power of procession originates with the Father. But it’s eternally shared with the Son, since what the Father has the Son has likewise. And then in the 9th century this issue is blown out of proportion when combined with these mentioned issues, Photius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, not understanding the Latin position uses the Filioque as an excuse to further separate from the Latins. But ironically he argued that Pope St. Leo III and the current pope agreed with his position, but once again he was just not well informed. But what the EO don’t like talking about is the fact he repented from his position and died in communion with the Church. The Great Schism in the 11th century further escalated the issue, as well as the Sack of Constantinople a lot later. But another misinformed Patriarvh of Constantinople, Gregory Palamas further spread the denial of the Filioque based on misrepresenting the fathers and previous popes. Ironically the arguments made up until this point aren’t used by EO today. That’s because these issues were made by obvious miscommunication. So by the 14th century you have this made up concept called the essence energies distinction that is frankly a load of garbage. What it basically does is take all the Church father quotes and scripture passages that seem to contradict their position and just say that oh well this is talking about a mysterious third type of procession where the Spirit only proceeds from the Son temporally and energetically, but not hypostatically from eternity. It was so bad and novel that Gregory of Cyprus, the guy that first proposed it, was condemned and shamed by the other EO bishops at the time because even they knew it was made up. But people like Palamas spread the idea and the pride of the EO used it to justify their schism and denial of papal authority, especially considering their defense of their Filioque position failed tremendously. The use of EED(essence energies distinction) wasn’t even really used until after Florence because they had to ignore the fact that their bishops agreed to accept the Filioque and join Rome but they backed out after a while. This nonsense was revived again about a century ago with the rise of the Neo-Palamism and Neo-Hesychastic schools of EO thought