That wording was made Church doctrine by the Ecumenical Councils and was the official wording of the faith of the undivided Church -- and to this day the plaque on the walls of the Vatican does not have the Filioque in the Creed!
The Orthodox Church is not an "ofshoot" of the "Catholic Church" but the Church that has not changed since the Church was undivided: the Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. We did not add to or change the Faith of the Councils; the Latins did.
My point, and the Catholic position as I understand it is that such acceptable to all wording is possible
That wording exists, and the Latin Church subscribed to it until the 11th century. If it was good for the first 1,000 years, it sure must be good today. Only an Ecumenical Council can change the wording. The the best of my recollection, there were only seven such Councils. The Councils the Catholics call "ecumenical" are not ecumenical (by definition) and the reason the Orthodox cannot hold ecumenical councils is because of the Latin schism. In order for a council to be Ecumenical, the Church of the East and West must be present.
The statements of the Ecumenical Councils cannot be reworded by lay people, clergy or even the Bishop of Rome. You don't seem to understand that. Adding to and subtracting from them is heresy.
Kolkotronis explained the difference in our understanding beautifully and quite professionally. The essential difference is in the Trinity and, as Kolokotronis aptly observes in a previous post, the confusion in the West over what are hypostasia and what ousia.
The Creed establishes that the Son is (eternally) begotten, and not made (created). The Creed was composed to counter Arian heresy which dealt precisely with this issue. The Creed does not suggest real-time process.
The Creed explains the Passion of the Jesus Christ, because He existed and suffered in real time and in a real place made possible by Incarnation. That is different from the eternal essence of the Triune God.
You are also making the same mistake many Catholics make you are quoting Church Fathers to "prove" a point. Church Fathers were not always right. Church Fathers strayed into heresy. Bishops and patriarchs alike. The only true teaching is what the Church has officially agreed to teach -- what the Seven Ecumenical Councils proclaimed. No one Church Father had monopoly on truth in the undivided Church, and no one Orthodox member of the Church does. Orthodoxy is exactly that: holding on to what the Church as the Body of Christ declared to be, as is, not more and not less.
I think Agrarian put it very well also: we are long ways from ecumenism or even communion. Amiable relations are one thing. Theological differences an altogether different one. That is the crux of the schism: we do not believe and profess one and the same faith no matter how you sugar coat it.
I am aware of the fact that I cannot change the wording of the Creed. But I can comment on it using words. Nothing in what has been posted here on the nature of the Trinity -- even looking ahead to 64 and 65, to which I will respond next -- strikes me as contrary to what Catholicism teaches.
Naturally, when the unity is restored, the Ecumenical Council will either have to find a better wording provided Filioque continues to be misunderstood, -- or the Orthodox will begin to understand that the Filioque wording does not threaten the balance of the Trinity.
The Creed explains the Passion of the Jesus Christ, because He existed and suffered in real time and in a real place made possible by Incarnation.
And in the same way the Creed needs to explain Christian ecclesiology by making a reference to the Christ's giving the Holy Ghost to the Apostles. This is what Filioque does.
You are also making the same mistake many Catholics make you are quoting Church Fathers to "prove" a point. Church Fathers were not always right.
So, St. Basil was wrong in The Holy Spirit 18:45-47? This is quite remarkable if you really think so.
Of course, having read my exchange with Kolokotronis, you realize that I was quoting St. Basil not in order to explain to him what the Holy Ghost is, but to correct his statement "Your comment that we do not receive the Holy Spirit directly from God like Moses for example isn't borne out by the Eastern Fathers at all, for example St. Basil the Great, St Symeon the New Theolgian, St. Gregory of Nyssa, etc".
we do not believe and profess one and the same faith no matter how you sugar coat it.
The differences in formulations exist and even greater differences in liturgical practice exist. The differences in the underlying doctrine are surmountable, if they exist at all. Of course no complete unity is possible as long as the Orthodox come to the open door and insist on banging on it rather than walking over the threshhold. I think it will take a few generations more, -- a short time in historical terms.