I wasn't really "confessing" anything; just offering a clarification that the Eastern Churches in union with Rome to not flock to the footnote of filioques to justify willful disunity.
I am not interested in triumphalist finger-wagging on either side. It doesn't feel nice to be called not-Orthodox -- no more, I reckon, than you fancy being called not-Catholic.
The Eastern churches at the time of Chalcedon were quite happy to place themselves under the spiritual leadership of Peter's successor at Rome, nor did multitudes of Eastern patriarchs in later centuries hesitate to appeal to Rome for a definitive adjudication of disputes. Despite overall differences in ecclesiology and spirituality, it's unfair to suggest that Eastern churches in communion with Rome are no better than fancy-dress pretenders. You cannot make accusations of this sort without accusing Chrysostom himself.
Romulus, I was kidding about the confession stuff! I thought you'd get it. Sheesh! As for the rest of it, well I'm not Roman Catholic, though a Catholic and you're not Orthodox, at least as the the term is used here, though quite orthodox. That's where the confusion can lie, even if you and I aren't confused.