The problem is that we mean different things when we say that the Holy Spirit proceeds. The latin meaning has its place in traditional latin theology long before there was schism, unfortunately the context in which it can be properly applied in latin is not the context of the intent creed. Somewhere along the line, it was decided that if the word was the same, then the definition should be the same and if the phrase is ok in theological writings, then it should be ok in the creed. This changed the intent of the creed in the west, and once it had been formally adopted, the east interpreted the latin use of "and the son" within the context of the original intent of the creed. When the east said "you can't do that", the west defended the presence of the clause in the creed.
My opinion would be that the creed should be recited and taught in a manner that conveys the original intent. This means removing the filioque, and if necessary inserting "immediately" (I suggest this word here because it is used within western tradition to describe the procession from the Father and not the Son) or some other word to designate the Holy Spirit's relationship of procession that properly comes from the Father.