Not if we take it to mean what it is officially intended to mean by both parties.
I fear to tread here, however I suspect that the intent of the filioque in the west was to some extent political and part of the campaign of the Carolingian Dynasty against the weight of the Byzantine Empire. I believe that theologically they had no intent to change the meaning of the creed.
However as the filioque poorly expresses the notion of procession, the opportunity for it to be misunderstood was present, and despite the warnings of the Holy Fathers from the East, the West with some purpose carried on, and as the did the meaning became somewhat distorted.
The matter of sustained control is part of the matter, because if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father there is a wider and wilder embrace for those moments when the Spirit might be ascertained, however if we confine the procession to the Son, and presumably his body the Church, then the Spirit can be discerned only within the prescribed parameters. This I think then leads to the error (in my mind at least)
outside the Church there is no salvation.
The spirit moved on the face of the water at the beginning what God was already creating the heavens and the earth. And I believe the Holy Spirit of God moved in this ancient land (Australia) long before any white man stepped ashore to proclaim the Sovereignty of England and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, with men in chains!
The Latins I believe, when they are speaking correctly speak of procession as
point of departure and the Greeks I believe, when they are speaking correctly speak of procession as the point of origin. You can not read Augustine and Aquinas and think that they did not get this. They clearly did.
It is possible they the true origin of the filioque is some poor overworked (or maybe a little hungover) copy monk on the Iberian peninsular copied the phrase from the line below and just basically did what we would call a typo. And somehow it escaped, and then someone defended it when challenged, and somehow the implausible was somehow accepted. The like a drop of water forming on the mountainside it rolled along until it got its own life at the Synod of Frankfurt.
I think that in there end there was little intent, certainly little theological intent, and the whole escapade has way too much politics in it to be holy. I think we in the west need to give it (the filioque clause in the Nicene Creed) up, less law more love, and more looking to God and all that he does in our world.
We don't hold God in the Church, we find God in Church in order that we might recognise him in the world.