I think that the Catechism wisely prefaces that with “In the Latin tradition”. If the Magisterium wanted to shut every door at this, they would not refer to a local belief.
Of course, Aquinas also taught the dual procession in the eternal realm.
The basis upon which this is to be resolved is to stop short of proclaiming the dual procession as dogma and rather recognize it as a Latin tradition, backtracking a bit from the Florence, which does nothing but harm to the East-West relations at this point anyway.
The dual procession, like Palamism, is something that is useful and each side should attempt to convince the other in its universal and dogmatic character; but it cannot be the basis of reunification. This discussion should follow reunification, all the more so that these ideas were introduced in a non-ecumenical fashion.
That depends what the Latin tradition is. Obviously, there is Latin tradition that pre-dates filioque, when the Latin Church was Patristic, and pre-Frankish. But I agree that it is wisely prefaced.
The basis upon which this is to be resolved is to stop short of proclaiming the dual procession as dogma and rather recognize it as a Latin tradition, backtracking a bit from the Florence
I guess it's going to be a horse-trade one way or another, the way the Church agreed to trade the Book of Hebrews for the Revelation.
The Church was theologically united when it canonized the Bible, met in first Ecumenical Councils and served Patristic liturgies. If the Latin Church wants to return to her Latin patristic roots, I don't see much in the way of a reunion by default.
It's not anything that the Latin Church did not profess or teach together with the Greek side. No morphing or lording is necessary. You can always appeal to tradition, wisely. Though, someone has to reset what the starting point is.