We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord the Giver of Life, who comes forth (ejkporeuvetai) from the Father as the one in whom the Son is begotten and who proceeds (proei'si) from and through the Son in communion with the Father, and together with the Father and the Son is worship and glorified.An interesting suggestion. But given the fact that we would require an Ecumenical Council (at least from our side's POV) to alter the Creed, wouldn't it be just easier if Rome removed the offending phrase from its version? Now I am not going to get into the issue of it's being heretical or not. That's being hashed out by people who probably translate the Sunday comics into ancient Aramaic for fun.
What to me is pretty hard to argue is that whether or not the Filioque is truly heretical when properly understood is moot. That's because the overwhelming majority of those in the pews DO NOT grasp the elaborate points Mike is making. And it is not practical to try and instruct the vast sea of ordinary laymen in the intricate points of advanced theology. They read "who proceeds from the father and the son" and foolishly believe what someone raised with a basic command of English would assume. Namely that it means what it says.
Now people like Mike and Benedict XVI and various others can hash out the finer points on the legitimacy of the Filioque, but I have a question. Why? What possible purpose does it serve? It was added illegitimately to the Creed (even Card +Ratzinger has acknowledged as much). I see no compelling reason for retaining it. And the likelihood that it is causing confusion among the Roman Catholic faithful, of whom I would hazard a guess that 99+% do NOT understand the true meaning of the Filioque as posited by Mike and other RC defenders, seems beyond doubt.
Back in the good old days before "heresy" was effectively removed from the Roman Catholic dictionary, the Holy Office (just typing the old name gives me chills) used to routinely suppress or condemn writings for a variety of reasons. One reason cited more frequently than heresy, was that the writings had a "tendency towards heresy." That would seem to be a good way of phrasing the principal objection.
In a nut shell my argument against the Filioque is this. Irrespective of whether or not it is heretical when properly understood, it is heretical as it is almost universally understood by the Roman Catholic faithful. And there is no practical way of correcting that short of removing it. It is an impediment to restored relations with the Orthodox Church. Its addition to the Creed was accomplished by means that have been publicly acknowledged by the current Pope to have been improper. And it serves no purpose which can justify its retention when weighed against the harm it is doing. The Filioque should be removed from the western creed until the issue of its orthodoxy can be resolved by a future council of the church.