How do Eastern Orthodox theologians understand the preschismatic Latin saints who used "filioque"?

The driving conflict for the 1054 Great Schism was over the insertion of the *filioque* (and from the Son) into the Nicene Creed. The Western, largely Latin speaking churches said that "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father *and the Son*" while the Eastern, largely Greek-speaking said simply "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father". This lead to the separation and mutual excommunication of the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches. My question concerns the Eastern Orthodox perspective on this, particularly historically as I am aware that some modern EO theologians have downplayed the difference. If *filioque* is regarded as heresy, what then does the EO make of pre-schismatic Latin saints who used the term? For instance, in Augustine's *De Trinitate*, Book IV chapter 5 argues that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son: > Nor, by the way, can we say that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son as well. I have heard that other Latin fathers such as Jerome and Ambrose also taught *filioque*. If *filioque* is regarded as heresy by EO theologians, how are Augustine, Jerome, and Ambrose regarded as saints?