That’s a pretty silly argument there.
The Nicene Creed, originally written in st the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, was obviously not written in English, but rather Greek, and then swiftly translated into Latin.
The original Greek words of that passage (We believe in one holy Catholic and apostolic church) are as follows:
Εἰς μίαν, Ἁγίαν, Καθολικὴν καὶ Ἀποστολικὴν Ἐκκλησίαν
(or, transliterated to use the Roman alphabet “Is mían, Aghían, Katholikín ke Apostolikín Ekklesian”)
The Latin version:
“in unam catholicam atque apostolicam ecclesiam”
In both versions you can spot “catholic” - “Katholikin” and “catholicam”, respectively. Both those words mean universal in those languages.
This made perfect sense because bishops from all over the Mediterranean and what we now know as the Levant and Turkey attended the Council at Nicaea - possibly up to 1000 of them, with 200 or so signing the various agreements that were hammered out - that was specifically convened by the Roman Emperor Constantine in order to resolve various doctrinal differences that had sprung up in the various different branches of the early Christian church. So including a section in the Creed they drafted that affirms a belief in one “universal” church obviously mattered.
Any attempt to view this adjective as a reference to the Roman Catholic Church post Martin Luther and the Protestant reformation (whether it is capitalised or not) can only be a much later reinterpretation. The text in this form existed for nearly 1200 years before those events even happened.