Support for the Papacy

On the doctrinal orthodoxy of the filioque, he said the following:
But on his own authority to recognize the modified creed as canonical, he said:
I think his worry may less be about the creed with the filioque being seen as theologically correct by the Franks (since he agreed with that) but rather about the creed without the filioque being seen as heretical by the Franks. So he made sure that the original form of the creed would not be forgotten (spoiler: it will be forgotten, in fact Cardinal Humbert's attack on the EP was because he believed the Constantinopolitan clergy had removed the filioque from the creed), while also making a statement that 1) authority rests in the Pope, not in the emperor, and 2) there is no absolute authority within one person independently from what the Fathers have taught and done, so even as the highest ecclesiastical authority in the Church, the Pope can't pretend he is illuminated by the Spirit like the council fathers were, in the end ecumenical councils are the highest authority.

I will quit soon too. It is indeed a cancer.

Well, even if he agreed with it, he didn't believe that he himself, as the pope, has the power to change the Creed. But his will was ignored and after his death the notion that a pope has authority above the Ecumenical Councils comes into play. Around the same time, the (Germanic) HRE emerges and the differences between the east and west are starting to become more and more clear every day. So it was impossible for the other patriarchates to accept the primacy of the Bishop of Rome anymore (let alone that the meaning of primacy after that changed).

Prots coping are insane

Not an argument