This post may read to be aggressive in tone; it is not intended to be so.
Often, I think we tend to speak as if we are theologians, which, most of us are not, or, we simply think too much.
Referring back to my Reply No. 4, no mater what may have been written by holy, spiritual men, the Orthodox have our Creed, the "Symbol of Faith," issued by the Undivided Church, and its 9th Article, which, as to this discussion is clear: "And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of Life, who proceeds from the Father"(Gospel of St. John 15: 26).
This article of the Creed, which our church pronounces as doctrine, i.e. matters that must be believed, is supported by scripture, "...the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father"
It is not for the faithful to come up with our own brilliance, "Well I think they mean that....;" Doesn't it make sense that..." The Creed and the scripture are not written ambiguously; they are clear and specific.
Didn't a pope have the words of the Creed, as originally promulgated, accepted by the church, and later ratified by the 3rd Ecumenical Synod (Council), have the Creed emblazoned in silver so that its language would never be changed?
In response to a question above, as to how the innovation of the procession of the Holy Spirit "and the Son," was added to the Creed, I thought the council that wrote it in Spain, was fighting Moors, Moslem hoards, and felt these words would emphasize the divinity of Jesus Christ, in response to the Moslem heresy. Also, while popes refused to allow these words to amend the Creed, I thought it was Charlemagne who coerced the pope to add the filioque, because he was working toward establishing the Holy Roman Empire, in 800, and felt the change to the Creed would distinguish the West and his empire from the Eastern Church, which was in the East Roman, or Byzantine Empire.