Shame, shame..
Some, notably St. Cyril of Jerusalem, refer the consecration to the action of the Holy Ghost in a way that seems to imply that the Epiklesis is the moment (St. Cyril, Cat. xix, 7; xxi, 3; xxiii, 7, 19; cf. Basil, "De Spir. Sancto," xxvii sqq.); others, as St. John Chrysostom (Hom. i, De prod. Iudæ, 6: "He [Christ] says: This is my body. This word changes the offering"; cf. Hom. ii, in II Tim., i), quite plainly refer Consecration to Christ's words. It should be noted that these Fathers were concerned to defend the Real Presence, not to explain the moment at which it began, that they always thought of the whole Eucharistic prayer as one form, containing both Christ's words and the Invocation (Epiklesis).
Again, from the Catholic site NewAdvent.org
I'm going to keep on bugging you, because someone has to keep you honest.
You would do well to read the actual Acts of the Council, rather than distorted summaries of them made by Orthodox polemicists.
The Acts of the Council of Ephesus are perfectly clear on this point. Read on from definition of the faith at Nicaea made in the 6th Session of the Council of Ephesus, 22 July 431:
The synod of Nicaea produced this creed:We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father. By whom all things were made, both which be in heaven and in earth. Who for us men and for our salvation came down, and was incarnate and was made man. He suffered and the third day he rose again, and ascended into heaven. And he shall come again to judge both the living and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost.
It seems fitting that all should assent to this holy creed. It is pious and sufficiently helpful for the whole world. But since some pretend to confess and accept it, while at the same time distorting the force of its expressions to their own opinion and so evading the truth, being sons of error and children of destruction, it has proved necessary to add testimonies from the holy and orthodox fathers that can fill out the meaning they have given to the words and their courage in proclaiming it. All those who have a clear and blameless faith will understand, interpret and proclaim it in this way.
When these documents had been read out, the holy synod decreed the following.
It is not permitted to produce or write or compose any other creed except the one which was defined by the holy fathers who were gathered together in the holy Spirit at Nicaea.
Any who dare to compose or bring forth or produce another creed for the benefit of those who wish to turn from Hellenism or Judaism or some other heresy to the knowledge of the truth, if they are bishops or clerics they should be deprived of their respective charges and if they are laymen they are to be anathematised.
No Westerner has "composed or brought forth" a new creed. And we certainly didn't change the Nicene Creed with the Filioque. It was added to the Constantinopolitan Creed, which was a Baptismal Creed in use prior to that Council. The Council of Ephesus very clearly refers to the Nicene Creed, so even if you interpretation were right, which I do not accept, the West has never violated it.
Your dishonesty knows no limits.