Well, no worries. There’s no way I can be clear with what I’m saying without a lot of background and side discussion, but it was worth the attempt. Thank you for good responses, nonetheless, even though the issue remains unresolved. I’ll keep praying on it and trying to find a way through it.
I did want to respond to the_coppersmith though; there’s no chance of me becoming a Latin mass traditionalist. I’m happy with the mass in the vernacular, and I believe that’s the way it should be. If I were to be a traditionalist, I’d be more for going back to adding more Hebrew to the mass. I don’t hold any special reverence for the Latin language. I appreciate it as the root of many modern languages, and I appreciate its history with the church (and many saints praying and worshiping in Latin.) I don’t think it’s extra reverent or magical in any way. Hebrew, now that’s a language God might appreciate, but He’ll hear us if we pray in another language, strange tongues, or even without words.
I guess it comes down to the fact that I’m still deconstructing my logical arguments against the Catholic Church, and the Nicene Creed rubs against a couple of sticking points. My conversion was one of the heart and spirit first, and the vast majority of my reasoned arguments against the church fell apart afterwards. However, a couple still stick around. I put them aside because of the Eucharist; primarily that Divine Presence, but to me, the Nicene Creed represents some of those sticking points.
I am also rather overwhelmed by all the division in Christianity, and I see the filioque controversy as a symbol of that division; borne out of arrogance at needing to say definitively things which humans have no business saying anything definitive about. Having that statement in the creed will always bug me, whether I think it’s correct (it probably is correct) or not.