The fact is that the West does not need the approval of an Ecumenical Council to compose prayers for its liturgy.
The Fathers did not include the Filioque because it was not an issue for which the Council was called.
Exactly! Thus it is imposible to say that it is contrary to the faith of Nicea or ever condemned by any Church council.
The Filioque was treated more-or-less the way one treats Limbo or the way the RCC treated the Immaculate Conception until the 19th century -- some believed it and some didn't, and no one was penalized for not believing it until it became dogma.
Thus to profess it (as did St. John Chrysostom who presided over Ephesus) cannot be heresy!
Last time I checked, Chalcedonian Creed is dogma.
The last time I checked the Catholic Church has never denied the teaching of Chalcedon.
But a Church which supposedly holds Ecumenical Council decision to be infallible and binding to the "t" is expected to keep the Creed as it was finalized by those Councils.
Exactly! Thus it is imposible to say that it is contrary to the faith of Nicea or ever condemned by any Church council
You are obfuscating the issue in a Jesuit manner. Speculation is one thing, altering the Creed is another. The Church condemns the addition to the Creed of the words "and from the Son."
Thus to profess it (as did St. John Chrysostom who presided over Ephesus) cannot be heresy!
But did St. John Crysostomos add it to his Divine Litrugy? Speculatuion is one thing; altering dogma and a Creed finalized by the Church is heresy.
"A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject." (Titus 3:10)