But you misunderstood my reasoning for quoting St. Maximus. I was not trying to prove that the Catholics were correct but only that in the early Church there was disagreement as to whether the Filioque was considered contrary to the teaching of the Councils.
If the Latin Church found it necessary to describe the "mechanics" of Trinitarian economy for whatever reason, it had no authority to unilaterally insert the Filioque into the Creed
I have already conceded that this action was uncanonical but, again, that is not the same as heretical and does not justify the anathemas proclaimed by the Orthodox.
The bottom line is this: individual fathers make opinions; Ecumenical Councils decide what is orthodoxy and what is heresy.
Agreed (did I actually say that word?) ;-) But as of yet no ecumenical council has that the Latin theology of Filioque is heretical and contrary to the councils of the past. Why is it so hard to leave the question at that?
Ecumenical Councils do not determine the truth. The truth exists and is articulated by God-seeing Fathers prior to any Council, and heresy is likewise identified as such, albeit it in an "unofficial" way, by the Church prior to the Council, which articulates the mind of the Church in a way that is as infallible as anything that is not Scripture can be.
This is how there can be gatherings of bishops that "decide" something, and yet have it be later rejected as a false council. It was false not because of technicalities about who was or wasn't there or what the procedures at the meeting were, but rather because what it "decided" was false.
Like Scripture, even the decrees of a Council must be interpreted in the light of the writings and mind of the Fathers.
There is also a second part to every Council: official canonical action both with regard to the heresy being addressed and with regard to other issues of the time.
It is not exactly true that no Ecumenical Council has declared on the Filioque. Councils of the Orthodox Church have done so, although unlike the Catholic church, we generally refrain from coming out and calling our subsequent councils "Ecumenical."
Also, since Rome cut herself off from the Orthodox Church prior to these councils, I am not certain that the Orthodox Church attempted in any of these to take canonical action against Rome. The circumspect nature of how the Orthodox Church has acted in this regard tends to reflect, in my opinion, the hope that Rome will someday return to Orthodox belief. The fact that the Orthodox never created an Orthodox Patriarch of Rome (even though their Catholic counterparts acted with no similar restraint) reflects this.
As my postings have indicated, the Orthodox Church has issued any number of statments, either by councils, from individual bishops, or from groups of bishops, that address the filioque and other issues. The Orthodox Church has been unequivocal that the filioque is theologically incorrect.
The Latins also added "God from God" to the Creed without "authorization." We Orthodox generally don't complain about the canonicity of this (even though this addition is also an inadmissible alteration of the Creed, from a canonical standpoint) and generally choose to ignore it because it is not heretical.
The filioque *is*, however, incorrect teaching. The doctrine of God is at the heart of all theology -- it is, in the truest sense of the word, the only thing truly worthy of the name "theology -- therefore this, not canonical and juridical details, is the fundamental reason that it cannot be overlooked.