Harley, the fact that some Latins to this day believe that the prayer they recite with the filioque is indeed the Nicene Creed is neither here nor there to us. All that belief demonstrates is how much work in catechesis needs to be done over on the banks of the Tiber and beyond. The article you quoted advances the notion that the filioque is a major stumbling block to the reunion of the Latin Church with the rest of The Church. That is simply and completely wrong, at least from an Orthodox pov and it's been a very long time since I've seen a Latin ready to go to the mattresses over the notion that the filioque was in the Creed established by the Ecumenical Councils. The rest of his article is pedestrian at best.
So now the issue of the filique is ho-hum? Do you have an "official" Church comment that states this?
I will say the more I mulled over your comment the more perplex I became. (Yes, I do meditate on your words while cutting the grass.) I hear a great deal about the "authority" of the church, and yet you chided a priest for not knowing the Church's stance on the filique. In fact you are saying that the priest writing is completely wrong and I should know better.
What you are essentially saying is that priest does not know what is the correct doctrine of the Orthodox Church and, presumably, you do. It is possible that some rogue priest is out there spreading all sorts of things that are contrary to the Church. This is what you're saying. But then again, aren't you suppose to submit yourself to the authority of the Church which means submitting yourself to this priest and his teaching?
I hear the Catholics and Orthodox complain that Protestants interpret their own writings and have no authority to submit to. Yet this is precisely what you are doing. There isn't really any different. You are saying this priest is wrong and ignore his article as "predestrian". This is your interpretation. Not any different then us Protestants.