The article, written by a parish priest in Tasmania, a man more noted for the troubles in his parish than his theological acumen, says nothing about what we “consider” an “earlier version” of the Creed, Harley. There is no “earlier” or “later” “version” of the Creed...just the Creed.
BTW, despite what the village priest says in the article, the filioque is not a stumbling block to unity with the Latins and hasn’t been for many years. The Pope’s public, liturgical recitation of the Creed without the Spanish/Frankish filioque addition is proof enough of that. There are all sorts of stumbling blocks to Rome’s reunion with the other Churches, mostly ecclesiological but there are some serious theological ones too, but the filioque isn’t one of them. You always want to check the bona fides of your sources, HD.
You and I both know that this is NOT true. We have talked about the filique extensively. In fact, I even agree with the Orthodox position on the filique. Perhaps from the Orthodox's position there is only one Nicene Creed but it is certainly NOT the version accepted, believed, and recited in the Catholic Church. You may wish to ignore the later version of the Nicene Creed, but this article written by a parish priest is not incorrect.