And you know that for certain how?
Further, while I don't have the posts at hand, and I'm sure not going to spend the time looking for them, there was some mixture of agreement by various Orthodox on your contention that "Paul was gnostic." Months and months of agreement.
You're correct, however, that your voice was chief among them.
Personally I don't believe +Paul was Gnostic, but I do believe that his way of thinking was akin to theirs and that probably a singificant number of his followers may have been Gnostics.
And that is why there actually are some things Bible-believing Christians agree with Rome over the objections of the Orthodox.
Such as Paul not leaning toward Gnosticism, and the correct understanding of the Filioque.
We don't dispute the correct understanding of the Filioque. Our own fathers express the same concept. However, it does not belong in the Creed because it does not express clearly that—as far as His existence is concerned—the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father.
The Catholics know that; they do not profess double origin. But I wouldn't put it past the Protestants.
The second reason the Filioque does not belong in the Creed is because it is an unatuhorized change the Fathers knew to probibit precisely because such alterations lead to heresy.
Now, after more than a thousand years of using the Filioque in their Creed, the Catholics are unlikely to just drop it, just as Christains are unlikely to expunge those parts of the bible we know were added at a later date. Part of it is pride, and a large part of it is that no religius group will or can ever admit to being wrong and sruvive.