Easterners, what do YOU believe about the Papacy?

[ConstantineTG]

In what ways?

Well, if the Vatican says its optional which would facilitate the return of the SSPX into the RC fold, then its optional. Then I wonder who would adhere to it then?

 

[Trebor135]

Well, if the Vatican says its optional which would facilitate the return of the SSPX into the RC fold, then its optional. Then I wonder who would adhere to it then?

Ahh, I get what you’re saying now. If Vatican II goes, we’re stuck with just Vatican I.

I’m going to start a thread in the Prayer Intentions sub-forum so CAF members of all Church affiliations can together battle spiritually for East-West reunion.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Ahh, I get what you’re saying now. If Vatican II goes, we’re stuck with just Vatican I.

I’m going to start a thread in the Prayer Intentions sub-forum so CAF members of all Church affiliations can together battle spiritually for East-West reunion.

Well, if Vatican II goes then all the good things about it goes along with the unfortunate fruits that came with it.

 

[Trebor135]

Well, if Vatican II goes then all the good things about it goes along with the unfortunate fruits that came with it.

True. I’m not exactly going to miss those protestantized Masses!

PS: The prayer thread I mentioned in post #242 can be found here–I invite everyone reading to participate.

 

[ConstantineTG]

True. I’m not exactly going to miss those protestantized Masses!

PS: The prayer thread I mentioned in post #242 can be found here–I invite everyone reading to participate.

But what about the advances in relationships with the Eastern Churches, even with those in communion with Rome? I know only a little under 2% of Catholics are Eastern, but is it worth alienating that group for the SSPX?

 

[TrueLight]

But Vatican II emphasized episcopal collegiality, while Vatican I stressed papal supremacy.

How would turning back the clock to 1960 alleviate the damage done in 1870 and thereby facilitate East-West reunion efforts?

I’m afraid I’m going to have to look up what happened in 1870.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I am just trying to state the simple fact that the Roman Church teaches the absolutist Petrine view.

I have difficulty seeing how that is possible, for two reasons:

(a) You’ve asserted this but - as far as I can see - haven’t backed it up with any authoritative citations at all, whereas those who defend the High Petrine view have done so with laborious thoroughness.

and

(b) Even those who share your disillusionment - like Malphono here on this forum - admit that in theory, in principle, the teachings themselves are not actually the Absolutist view.

The Pope is the final interpreter of the law and of scripture. If he functions this way, then there is only one conclusion.

Why? Plenty aspects of Church law are clear and do not require further interpretation.

Like having to approve ordinations of bishops, summoning them to Ad Limina visits, and even having to confirm the election of a Major Archbishop?

Those are all pan-diocesan matters.

There is more than one interpretation by others. What matters is the view of the Pope and how he exactly wields his power. And it points to nothing else but the absolute Petrine view.

Good grief, Constantine; I know even Orthodox Christians who disagree with this. They fully acknowledge what seems self-evident to them: that Pope Benedict XVI and other recent popes have not held an Absolutist view; they simply don’t trust that his successors will be similarly inclined. But you’re the first I’ve even heard *claim *that recent popes don’t at least personally hold to the High Petrine view.

But what evidence do we have? For one thing, there is no bishop ordained without his permission.

How does that indicate the Absolutist Petrine view in action?

I think we may be talking past each other. The view that I - and others on this thread - are defending doesn’t deny that the pope can personally exercise the supreme authority of the Church… that’s not what distinguishes the “High Petrine” view from the neo-Ultramontanist innovation.

The Eastern Churches are not autocephalous.

Indeed, but no one ever said they were. In English, I’ve always seen sui iuris translated as autonomous or self-governing, not autocephalous.

(And yes, I know many eastern Catholic churches are not self-governing in a de facto sense, but that’s because their situation is designed to be temporary. The whole eastern Catholic structure functions in anticipation of eventual reunion)

But we are neither. Obviously we are dictated upon to one extent or another.

I’m not trying to say this is a bad thing. Its not. I’m trying to say that we should be honest about it. We should call a spade, a spade. This is what being Catholic means.

I think I see better what you’re saying now. And of course I don’t disagree.

But this state of affairs is not the product of an Absolutist papal ecclesiology. Total, absolute separation from other synods is indeed not the Catholic way, but nor is neo-Ultramontanism the Catholic way.

They may not be run by “absolute dictates” from Rome, but I have an honest question: are the synodal elections of patriarchs in the Eastern Catholic Churches approved by the Pope of Rome for final “vesting” (or approval, or “okaying,” or however the greater-educated might put it?) If they are, and must be, then that presents a challenge to pre-schism ecclesiology and eventual reunion. We (the Orthodox) would never accept the action of the Patriarch of Rome accepting or denying the appointing of the bishops when said bishops are not within the See of the Patriarch of Rome. Our bishops are our business! If our local synod approves a patriarch, we do not in any way need the Patriarch of Rome to approve it, because the Holy Spirit approved it beforehand!

It depends.

If a given eastern Catholic church is, in canon law, a major archepiscopal church, then yes, the pope does get to accept or approve the appointment of that synod’s head bishop.

If, however, a given eastern Catholic church is, in canon law, a patriarchal church, then no, the pope does not confirm the appointment of the patriarch. He is simply notified of the result.

There are more patriarchal eastern Catholic churches than major archepiscopal ones.

As Vico pointed out, though, in the event of reunion we would not expect the Orthodox to conform to the existing ecclesiastical structure; it would be worked out anew.

Hi all. I fell pretty far behind in terms of reading this thread, and just now read a very large number of posts to catch up. (The feeling this produces is interesting, a zombie-ish state you might say, or perhaps the stupor of a cult-follower – not that I would know. )

But seriously, I have to ask: Out of those of you who label everyone as “low petrine” “high petrine” and “absolutist petrine”, how many of you have made any effort to see whether these terms actually exist off-line?

They exist by different names. Actually, I have seen a citation from one print source that spoke of a “high Petrine” interpretation in ecclesiology, but mostly they’re different names. For instance, the High Petrine view is classical Ultramontanism. The Absolutist Petrine view is 19th century neo-Ultramontanism. Etc.

Actually Rome has to give the answer. IF they don’t want make a public statement on it then don’t blame outsiders. Rome has the control.

Here I agree with you, Hesychios. I don’t understand why there’s such concern over what the MP will think. The UGCC deserves a patriarch.

The answer is simply, russia will think of rome and have a bitter taste in the palate. The little ecumenism will crash and burn.

And is dialogue with the Russian Orthodox Church going spectacularly well as is? I don’t think so. I don’t see why it’s not well worth it for the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church to have a patriarch.

Some Eastern Catholics don’t seem to agree with this. I could be wrong but it seems our brother Marduk would call this terminology absolutist. Perhaps he can clarify if he thinks so.

He is definitely an Eastern Catholic NOT on his way to Orthodoxy.

Marduk would agree with that quote, actually. It says the pope’s power is supreme, full, immediate, and universally ordinary throughout the Church. And that he can always freely exercise it.

Marduk would take issue only if it said the pope has proper authority in another bishop’s church, or if it belittled or denied the divinely established nature and prerogatives of the episcopate.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

If Pope Benedict XVI were at this moment assumed into heaven and by some unusual turn of events I found myself taking his place, I would seriously consider making a proclamation along the following lines:

Most respected fellow disciples of Christ under the guidance of the divinely esteemed Church of Rome:

Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition inform us of the gravely sinful and harmful nature of schism. This most humble pope of Rome are painfully aware of this fact on account of the numerous divisions among the Apostolic Churches which arose in and around the years 424, 451, and 1054. I have come to see that, in order for the two lungs of the Church–the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches–to be reunited, we will have to reexamine a few points, for the Lord prayed for us to be one as he and the Father are one, and the will of God must always trump the whims of man.

By my supreme authority as the successor of St. Peter the Apostle in his most splendid chair, and the chief shepherd of the Church, and the most humble Vicar of Christ on Earth, I declare, define, say, and proclaim that the doctrines of the filioque, papal universal jurisdiction, and papal infallibility are no longer to be considered articles of Catholic faith. By the selfsame authority, I pledge that no more ex cathedra statements will proceed from the Apostolic See other than those necessary to remove all obstacles which stand solidly and unmovingly in the way of the reunion of the ancient Churches. Moreover, I bind firmly all my successors in the name of Jesus Christ to this promise which I have solemnly made.

May Our Lord Jesus Christ bless you and protect you and keep you in all ways comprehended most deeply by the omniscient mind of God, and may Our Lady the Blessed Virgin Mary pray unceasingly for your welfare and salvation now and until the hour of your departure into the next world. Amen.

Thank you.

That woudn’t be valid, for two reasons:

**(a) **No pope can declare something not to be an article of faith, that has already been declared so. Papal infallibility and universal papal jurisdiction were defined as such by the First Vatican Council, which is considered an ecumenical council. If a pope can undo an ecumenical council, then all the others - Nicaea I, Ephesus, etc. - are dispensable, too. But they’re not dispensable… so neither is Vatican I.

The pope doesn’t have that kind of authority. Ironically, in theoretically positing such an action, you implicitly grant to the pope far greater power than he is held to possess even by current Catholic teaching.

Not what we want to be doing.

**(b) **The filioque is just a word, one whose use is already not universally binding. Properly interpreted, it refers to the same Trinitarian faith that the Creed sans-filioque refers to. So it’s a meaningless contradiction at best to say that “the doctrines of the filioque” are not binding. There are no separate “filioque doctrines”; there’s just the word. And the word is already not universally binding.

There is no way Vatican I will be undone. So there will be no other Petrine View other than the absolutist one. Those are the facts.

Vatican I does not teach the “absolutist” or neo-Ultramontanist view. It teaches classical Ultramontanism, and Pope Pius IX’s views shifted away from his former absolutist leanings precisely because of the experience of the council.

When bishops assemble as a council and vote it would be a rare event that they would be unanimous. It is the consensus in union that is significant. So the outsiders in faith and moral must give into the consensus. Any group can declare the other as the out group, but cannot do so validly unless by the majority of the whole assembly. It was not a conciliar consensus of the whole Church that declared the Catholic Church to be heterodox. It could not be so since this was not done at the last united opportunity at the Eighth Ecumenical Council (neither 869–870 nor 879-880 by either reckoning) by the assembled bishops of the entire Church.

Great point, Vico!

That the Latin Church is in heresy is simply not an officially binding teaching of the eastern Orthodox Church, even if most of them believe it.

Well, if the Vatican says its optional which would facilitate the return of the SSPX into the RC fold, then its optional. Then I wonder who would adhere to it then?

I think that’s a CAF “traditionalist” pipe dream. Vatican II is an ecumenical council. Its decrees are as optional as the decrees themselves say they are - no more, no less. And traditionalist rhetoric about the council’s “pastoral” nature aside, I don’t recall the Council Fathers of Vatican II ever saying, “This is just some kind-hearted, good ol’ pastoral advice for all of you. It’s optional! Feel free to disregard everything we’re saying!”

But what about the advances in relationships with the Eastern Churches, even with those in communion with Rome? I know only a little under 2% of Catholics are Eastern, but is it worth alienating that group for the SSPX?

Heck no. Eastern Catholics deserve far more from Rome than the SSPX.

 

[steve_b]

Which is as much as those who are calling for the Pope to return to his primacy and authority in the First Millennium. At this point it is just a pipe dream.

That was meant as a discussion point advanced by then Card Ratzinger. Has that moved the discussion? Not that I can see. So what does that suggest?
C:

By the way, Pope Pius IX is beatified, so there is really no way he will be declared a heretic. There is no way Vatican I will be undone. So there will be no other Petrine View other than the absolutist one. Those are the facts.

Could you show with references, where the Church in all it’s avalanche of materials, describes the “absolutist” Petrine view?

btw definitionally, absolute ≠ absolutist

 

[ConstantineTG]

I have difficulty seeing how that is possible, for two reasons:

(a) You’ve asserted this but - as far as I can see - haven’t backed it up with any authoritative citations at all, whereas those who defend the High Petrine view have done so with laborious thoroughness.

and

(b) Even those who share your disillusionment - like Malphono here on this forum - admit that in theory, in principle, the teachings themselves are not actually the Absolutist view.

So things like “universal ordinary jurisdiction” doesn’t mean absolutist?

Why? Plenty aspects of Church law are clear and do not require further interpretation.

Regardless, the Pope still can interpret it one way or another even though we “thought” it was clear.

Those are all pan-diocesan matters.

Still, if Eastern Churches are sui juris, why are our bishops subject to the Pope the same way as Roman bishops? Those who claim the High Petrine view claim to the contrary. I’m just stating the simple fact here that such a view is a figment of one’s imagination.

Good grief, Constantine; I know even Orthodox Christians who disagree with this. They fully acknowledge what seems self-evident to them: that Pope Benedict XVI and other recent popes have not held an Absolutist view; they simply don’t trust that his successors will be similarly inclined. But you’re the first I’ve even heard *claim *that recent popes don’t at least personally hold to the High Petrine view.

So the truth is subject to a matter of a survey based on Orthodox Christians you know? The truth is in the paper. The paper says absolutist. And the Orthodox Christians I know say as such. So what know? Its an Orthodox Chirstians you know vs. the Orthodox Christians I know? He says, she says? It doesn’t work that way. The documents in Vatican I say what the extent of the powers the Pope has. Whether he exercises them or not does not change the fact of the matter. As I have already proven with links to the Vatican website, the Pope has clearly stated that just because he doesn’t exercise a certain power doesn’t mean he doesn’t wield it. And I compared it to nuclear weapons. Why don’t we feel safe that China, North Korea etc. has nuclear weapons? They haven’t used it. Only the US has used nuclear weapons, we should feel safe if Pakistan or whoever has them because they haven’t used it.

How does that indicate the Absolutist Petrine view in action?

Because the Pope takes charge of the daily life of the Church. For one thing, this is unprecedented. It was never done in the early Church.

I think we may be talking past each other. The view that I - and others on this thread - are defending doesn’t deny that the pope can personally exercise the supreme authority of the Church… that’s not what distinguishes the “High Petrine” view from the neo-Ultramontanist innovation.

Then what does?

Indeed, but no one ever said they were. In English, I’ve always seen sui iuris translated as autonomous or self-governing, not autocephalous.

(And yes, I know many eastern Catholic churches are not self-governing in a de facto sense, but that’s because their situation is designed to be temporary. The whole eastern Catholic structure functions in anticipation of eventual reunion)

Yet we have many who make the claim, “we are not under the Pope, we are in communion with him.” That is autocephaly. I’m just stating the facts here, I’m not trying to say being under the Pope is bad. I’m just saying, we should call it as it is.

I think I see better what you’re saying now. And of course I don’t disagree.

But this state of affairs is not the product of an Absolutist papal ecclesiology. Total, absolute separation from other synods is indeed not the Catholic way, but nor is neo-Ultramontanism the Catholic way.

But neither is it the High Petrine view. Unless we are understanding the High Petrine view differently. Maybe we need a recap of the three views, and perhaps there are a few more levels in between.

Vatican I does not teach the “absolutist” or neo-Ultramontanist view. It teaches classical Ultramontanism, and Pope Pius IX’s views shifted away from his former absolutist leanings precisely because of the experience of the council.

The language of the papal bull still points to an absolutist view. The Pope not exercising the authority fully doesn’t change the fact. Again, he has a loaded gun. Not using it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. He can still pull it out and shoot people later if he changes his mind.

I think that’s a CAF “traditionalist” pipe dream. Vatican II is an ecumenical council. Its decrees are as optional as the decrees themselves say they are - no more, no less. And traditionalist rhetoric about the council’s “pastoral” nature aside, I don’t recall the Council Fathers of Vatican II ever saying, “This is just some kind-hearted, good ol’ pastoral advice for all of you. It’s optional! Feel free to disregard everything we’re saying!”

But that is what looks like where we are headed right now. Frankly, I will be disappointed if the Pope does so on the account of the SSPX. My discernment between the Catholic and Orthodox Church might hinge on something that has nothing to do with the Eastern Churches. That is how this SSPX thing turns out. Not that I’m going to leave the Catholic Church on the account of the SSPX, but how this is handled will to me signal the integrity of the Papacy. From the beginning I don’t even know why we are negotiating with the SSPX. They should be excommunicated and only received back if they accept everything about the Church today, no ifs, no buts. Anyway, I can go on about this for hours, I’ll just have to wait and see how this goes. September seems to be the new deadline in this long, drawn-out drama.

Heck no. Eastern Catholics deserve far more from Rome than the SSPX.

I totally agree with that. But hey, we’re not the ones getting exemptions from Church councils here. Thus my sentiments above.

 

[ConstantineTG]

That was meant as a discussion point advanced by then Card Ratzinger. Has that moved the discussion? Not that I can see. So what does that suggest?

I brought that up earlier in the thread, the quote from Cardinal Ratzinger. It seems that idea remained with that identity as Pope Benedict XVI has never mentioned it.

Could you show with references, where the Church in all it’s avalanche of materials, describes the “absolutist” Petrine view?

btw definitionally, absolute ≠ absolutist

Do we go further than Vatican I. For one thing, Eastern Churches do not want ordinary jurisdiction for the Pope in their Churches. That is never going to happen. Do I need to go further than that?

 

[steve_b]

But Vatican II emphasized episcopal* collegiality*, while Vatican I stressed papal supremacy.

Please review Lumen Gentium
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

Collegiality and supremacy aren’t used in the document. Instead look for *college */ *collegial *and Supreme and how those terms are used
T:

How would turning back the clock to 1960 alleviate the damage done in 1870 and thereby facilitate East-West reunion efforts?

Turning back the clock, Division was a problem even Paul saw and wrote against. People rebelling against authority goes back to Adam. And as Paul warned, those who do it, don’t serve Our Lord Jesus but their own selfish appetites. [Rm 16:17-20] And the consequesces for those who do this and remain divided, won’t inherit heaven [Gal 5:19-21]. Clement of Rome had to settle sedition in Corinth (during apostolic times), Irenaeus wrote against heresies that caused divisions, So did Cyprian, and a whole host of other Fathers. Every Church that broke from the chair of Peter, and remained divided from Peter, how are they doing today? And the main question to ask, what would Jesus say about that division?

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by C
By the way, Pope Pius IX is beatified, so there is really no way he will be declared a heretic. There is no way Vatican I will be undone. So there will be no other Petrine View other than the absolutist one. Those are the facts.

Originally Posted by Peter J
Hi all. I fell pretty far behind in terms of reading this thread, and just now read a very large number of posts to catch up. (The feeling this produces is interesting, a zombie-ish state you might say, or perhaps the stupor of a cult-follower – not that I would know. )

(emphasis added)

Impressive. And before you ask, yes I can count that high.

 

[steve_b]

I brought that up earlier in the thread, the quote from Cardinal Ratzinger. It seems that idea remained with that identity as Pope Benedict XVI has never mentioned it.

Yet everybody seems to know of the statement around here.

I’m only thinking out loud on this, but I think then Card Ratzinger, meant that statement to be a provacative exercise to get the East into a different dialogue. I think he knew of what he was advancing as a conversation starter. I think he also knew it would be an eye opener or he wouldn’t have suggested it. Did the East investigate that suggestion back when it was suggested? Things didn’t seem to advance…right? …why?
C:

Do we go further than Vatican I. For one thing, Eastern Churches do not want ordinary jurisdiction for the Pope in their Churches. That is never going to happen. Do I need to go further than that?

I think we have to be more specific when we talk of “Eastern Churches”

I’ve quoted this many times already. This applies to Eastern Churches in union with the pope. If they don’t agree to this then they aren’t in union with the pope, and they aren’t Catholic

(all emphasis mine)

"The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches states it in these terms: “The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.” (Canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches)

If an Orthodox subscribes to the Canon quoted above, he/she can be called Catholic and be considered “united to Rome” or in full communion with the Catholic Church."

melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/are-we-orthodox-united-with-rome

 

[Nicea325]

Is it pride from both sides? If each side believes they have the truth, why should they compromise the truth? For the sake of ecumenism? Of unity? Should we become heterodox just to have everyone under our wing? Its like saying, should we embrace Arianism just so we will have the SDA, JW and LDS under our wing. The problem is each side believes the truth to be the opposite of what the other believes. The Orthodox believe the Pope’s current authority is a heterodox faith. Why would they give in? The Catholic side believes that the Pope’s current authority is dogma. Why would we throw away a dogma?

Who said anything about compromising the truth?

 

[Peter_J]

Who said anything about compromising the truth?

I think you’re missing his point.

 

[Trebor135]

But what about the advances in relationships with the Eastern Churches, even with those in communion with Rome? I know only a little under 2% of Catholics are Eastern, but is it worth alienating that group for the SSPX?

Perhaps the pope could incorporate into canon law those elements of Vatican II which pertain to the Eastern and Oriental Churches in and out of communion with Rome.

I haven’t studied these matters, so it’s difficult to propose good and realistic solutions.

 

[Trebor135]

I’m afraid I’m going to have to look up what happened in 1870.

Vatican I. The council which defined the universal jurisdiction and doctrinal infallibility of the bishop of Rome.

 

[TrueLight]

Vatican I. The council which defined the universal jurisdiction and doctrinal infallibility of the bishop of Rome.

I see.

It’s interesting how we were able to back away from dogmatic declarations of papal infallibility and supremacy.

Was that “clarified” in Vat II documents?

Unfortunately it is not that simple. You cannot undogmatize a dogma. You will have to declare it a heresy and excommunicate the Pope and all those involved in the heresy. By doing so you have proven that the Pope lost his Papal authority at the time and thus could not have declared something infallibly. Only then would you have the authority to undo what has been done. But declaring a dogma undogmatized is heresy in itself unless Papal Supremacy is declared a heresy first.

You can by being vague. I expect to see vague statements in the SSPX agreement with Rome, for example.

I heard an SSPX priest who is against the Society’s reconciliation with Rome give an analogy that went something like this (major paraphrase coming):

Imagine one person likes light bulbs and one hates light bulbs.

• The one who likes light bulbs says let’s write a statement that says we like light bulbs.
• The one who hates light bulbs, says no way. I hate light bulbs and I’m not going to agree to such a statement.

So then they come to an agreement. They will write a statement that says they both are near light bulbs.

The first party still likes light bulbs. The second party still hates light bulbs, but they are reconciled under the banner of being near light bulbs. LOL.

So yeah. Vagueness is the key and “clarification”. I dont’ see any other way of going back on those Vat I statements.

 

[Trebor135]

That woudn’t be valid, for two reasons:

I know, hence calling it a “pipe dream” later in the post.

**(a) **No pope can declare something not to be an article of faith, that has already been declared so. Papal infallibility and universal papal jurisdiction were defined as such by the First Vatican Council, which is considered an ecumenical council. If a pope can undo an ecumenical council, then all the others - Nicaea I, Ephesus, etc. - are dispensable, too. But they’re not dispensable… so neither is Vatican I.

Indeed.

The pope doesn’t have that kind of authority. Ironically, in theoretically positing such an action, you implicitly grant to the pope far greater power than he is held to possess even by current Catholic teaching.

I’m not granting any such authority to the pope. But if he’s going to claim to possess the charism of doctrinal infallibility, he might as well employ it to some good end which will have a real impact on intra-Christian relations. (What’s ironic is that the two dogmatic statements that all agree were ex cathedra–the immaculate conception and the assumption–teach correctly about the Theotokos (if both Eastern and Western views of original sin can be reconciled), whereas the council where this authority was officially defined does not, at least according to my investigation so far, teach rightly about the Petrine ministry!)

Not what we want to be doing.

Well, if the Catholic hierarchy desires reunion with the Orthodox Churches, it’s going to have to budge on a few matters.

**(b) **The filioque is just a word, one whose use is already not universally binding. Properly interpreted, it refers to the same Trinitarian faith that the Creed sans-filioque refers to. So it’s a meaningless contradiction at best to say that “the doctrines of the filioque” are not binding. There are no separate “filioque doctrines”; there’s just the word. And the word is already not universally binding.

But Eastern Catholics are expected to hold that the theology behind the filioque is orthodox, even if they are not obliged to recite the term in the Nicene Creed.

Also, in my earlier post I intended “the doctrines of the filioque, papal universal jurisdiction, and papal infallibility” to mean “the doctrines of (1) the filioque, (2) papal universal jurisdiction, and (3) doctrinal infallibility”.

A decent number of Orthodox, including on CAF, disagree that, “[p]roperly interpreted, it refers to the same Trinitarian faith that the Creed sans-filioque refers to”. And they don’t all simply have an axe to grind with the Latins.