No, it didn't. You're thinking of the Creed of Pseudo-Athanasius.
Are you referring to the "Hinduque" in the Vatican 2 pseudo-Catholic version of the creed?
Even if the original version of the creed as adopted at the venerable council of Nicea doesn't contain the filioque, we know (from some of his letters) Saint Athanasius certainly acknowledged that the Holy Ghost does proceed from the Son.
For example:
St. Athanasius writes in about 360 to Serapion of Thmius:
Insofar as we understand the special relationship of the Son to the Father, we also understand that the Spirit has this same relationship to the Son. And since the Son says, "everything that the Father has is mine (John 16:15)," we will discover all these things also in the Spirit through the Son. And just as the Son was announced by the Father, who said, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased (Matthew 3:17)," so also is the Spirit of the Son; for, as the Apostle says, "He has sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, 'Abba! Father!' (Galatians 4:6)."
Unfortunately, as you know, the filioque isn't the only difference between the true Catholic Faith and the orthodox religion.
Here's an official statement made by a saintly pope a couple of decades after the Council of Nicea which addresses this question authoritatively.
Pope St. Damasus I, in a statement that has been preserved in the Acts of the Council of Rome of 382, writes:
"The Holy Spirit is not of the Father only, or the Spirit of the Son only, but He is the Spirit of the Father and the Son."
Clothe this matter in whatever ecumaniac double-speak you will, but the bottom-line is - the "orthodox" are wrong.
It wouldn't surprise me if our misguided "orthodox" adversaries have also removed any mention about "sins of omission".