I have given some thought about your posts and perhaps Kosta has gleaned where the problem is. The relevant section of the Creed dealt with refutation of Christologic and Trinitarian heresy. It speaks to the "inner and outer nature" of the Trinity. It doesn't deal with what goes on in the here and now. Thus, the difference between "ekporevetai" in Jn 15:26 and "lavete" in Jn 20:22 is very important since these words efer to different things. Ekporvetai is dealing with the the Spirit in the same manner that the English words "begotten not made" deals with the Logos, though of course these are not at all the same concept. "Lavete", liturgically translated as "take" as opposed to "receive" is a temporal imperative form. In other words, it has to do with us in the here and now. Procession has nothing to do with us nor with time. One might be able to say "through the Son" in a non exclusive sense regarding the "lavete" matter, but of course that doesn't talk about the nature of the Trinity and in any event, none of us, from the Pope on down, can sua sponte change what the Church decided in the Council and which was received and accepted by the people. Does this help?
In space and time, in relationship to Creation, and in relationship to our salvation, the Spirit and the Son play roles in the work of the other. The Son sent the Spirit (the Comforter) to the Church, and the Son became incarnate through the action of the Holy Spirit. These actions in time and in the economy of our salvation point to the intimate working and perfect cooperation between the persons of the Trinity. It does not mean that the Son is the eternal source of the Spirit's procession any more than it means that the Spirit created the Eternal Word of God.
All are equal in honor and glory and are equally worshipped. All are bound together in mutual love.
One of implications to the different way that the Orthodox view the Trinity is that all of our worship and understanding is personal. The unifying factor in the Holy Trinity is not an abstract "Divine Essence," it is the person of the Father. One God, revealed in three Persons, and that is how we tend to worship and pray -- not to God in general, but to the persons of the Trinity by name -- either individually or to the "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the Holy Trinity, one in essence and undivided," as the line from the Divine Liturgy states.
That is true, and I think all three of you point out the important thing about Filioque, -- that it renders the whole phrase sort of multidimensional. The Roman understanding is, and the intent was, to mention the role of the Holy Ghost in the economy of salvation at the same time it is introduced in the Creed as a Trinitarian person. The Orthodox objection is that such mutidimensionality is confusing.
But the entire Creed is supposed to deal with the Trinitarian aspect as well as the temporal aspect. The outline of our faith would not be complete without a reference to the Passion, the Ressurrection, and the Pentacost. Hence John 20:22 has to be mentioned in some form. Adn this is all the Catholic position is, that we disagree about words, not about what the Creed is really saying.