The Filioque should be a non-issue.
It doesn’t fit well with the Greek understanding of the Holy Trinity but is pretty easy to understand from the Latin POV.
Orthodox not in-Commmunion with Rome cannot accept it because they cannot accept the Latin perspective on many theological constructs, OK for them.
The Catholic Communion has a very broad attitude in regard to the Eastern-Western perspectives, the Creed is fine with-or-without the Filioque. The Eastern Catholic churches no longer teach the Filioque and many Eastern Catholic parishes (like mine) have already dropped it from recitation. But Eastern Catholics understand that from a Latin perspective (we don’t share that perspective but we respect it) it can make sense, and so we have no disagreement. You may say it if you wish and we will not object, we may leave it out and you will not object!
The problem is (and remains) that the early Ecumenical Councils crafted the Creed. Later local Councils in the West added the Filioque in increments from place to place, the East feels that it was improper to modify the Creed in that way and they have a point. That would be like Texas and Arizona modifying the US Constitution and teaching it that way to their children, regardless of what anyone else thought. People everywhere else might say: “hey, what gives? You can’t amend the Constitution without all our approval!” And Texas might just say “eat my shorts, we can do whatever we want!”.
So it doesn’t really matter if the theology is correct or not, from the Eastern perspective the Creed in that form cannot be the Universal rule of Faith it was intended to be. Perhaps it should be renamed, or clearly taught as a particular rule of Faith for the Western church alone. In any case, until the Orthodox are convinced that Latin theology is as valid as Greek theology, the Filioque will sound heretical to them.