Against these challenges, the fathers at the Council of Constantinople (381) affirmed the faith of Nicaea, and produced an expanded Creed, based on the Nicene but also adding significantly to it.HarleyD, you're misreading something here. The Orthodox never withdrew their support as a result of anything that occured at one of the Seven Councils. Please note that the Creed as quoted in your referenced article states that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father. The filioque would not come up as an issue for several centuries afterwards.Of particular note was this Creed’s more extensive affirmation regarding the Holy Spirit, a passage clearly influenced by Basil of Caesaraea’s classic treatise On the Holy Spirit, which had probably been finished some six years earlier. The Creed of Constantinople affirmed the faith of the Church in the divinity of the Spirit by saying: "and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of life, who proceeds (ekporeuetai) from the Father, who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets."
As far as not withdrawing their support it seems each was excommunicating the other. Please consider:
”Most significantly, Patriarch Photios called the addition of the Filioque in the West a blasphemy, and presented a substantial theological argument against the view of the Trinity which he believed it depicted.”
If they didn’t withdraw their support they sure had a nasty food fight. I doubt if you'll get an Eastern Orthodox to agree to the Nicene Creed as published by the RCC. (At least that was the case on this website.)
To get back on topic I only meant the Filioque in the Nicene Creed to serve as an illustration on how people can interpret either scriptures (or traditions) differently much like the “Rapture”. Perhaps I should have used "sola scriptura". :O)