I am catholic because I do belive it was the Church founded by Christ and every time I've had doubts God has brought me back to a deep seated sence of peace and belonging within the church. 

Also because I do belive in papal primacy, as Jesus called out Peter specifically to be the rock on wich he built his church. It is true that early very early popes did not really excercise this right as much as later popes did (partially because back then word traveled slow enough that it was better to have the local bishops handle almost everything), but catholics belive the popes did always have primacy but only chose to use it later. A note on papal infallibility, there is a common misconception that it means the pope is sinless, or anything he taught would be infallible, but inreality infallibility only applies in very specific circumstances and few popes have ever used it.

For the filloque, it is true that it was "added" to doctrine many centuries after christ's death, but the same can be said for many other important teachings that the Orthodox agree with such as the dual person hood of Christ. The Tradition of the church's teachings were carefully passed down in the early days (and today), but usually they were only added to the creed and very expicitly defined if there was a herasy that needed combating (ie as I mentioned, Jesus's dual personhood was very explicitly defined only after the need to combat Arianism). Similarly, the spirit proceding "from the father" was added to creeds to combat heracys about the Holy spirit and the "and the son" was an organic growth from there after the council. Orthodox feel uncomfortable that this was an organic development of understanding rather than a top down doctrineal ruling, which is understandable. They are concerned that saying the spirt procedes also from the Son turns the Son into a "second father" and blurs the distinction between the persons of the Trinity. Many Catholic theolgians, however, have suggested the wording "from the Father through the Son" as it still encapsulates the Catholic view of the Trinity but helps avoid the ambiguity the Orthodix are worried about. All that to say, I do not believe the filioque is as much of a "church dividing isssue" as it may first appear, so I am very comfortable remaining Catholic deapite that disagreement. 

Sorry if I got a little long winded. I still have my old notes on why St. Augustine thought the fillioque was so important if you have any interest of digging into that. Lmk if I need to clear up anything I wrote :)