"To resolve the dispute, a creed was proposed which favoured Athanasius and condemned Arius. Although most of the bishops present were not Arian, many of them were equally opposed to the wording of part of the creed which defined the nature of Jesus as of "one substance" with the Father. Over sixteen centuries later, the theologians of the Eastern Orthodox churches and the Western Churches, of Roman origin, are still divided over this issue."
I'm not an EO expert, but I do not believe this is factually true. I think the author is confusing the doctine of "one substance" from Nicea with the filioque. Eastern and Western churches are in agreement on the doctrine of Christ being "of one substance" with the Father.
RE: I think the author is confusing the doctine of "one substance" from Nicea with the filioque.
I think you are correct.
I cited this article to highlight the political power struggles that were occurring during the development of the Nicene Creed. Avenger had posted that "the bible was compiled by humans (politicians and religious leaders) 100's of years after Jesus." I agreed with him and used the article to support that. If you do a google search, there are numerous other articles that provide information on the politics behind the creed.