That is what the Vatican teaches. Whether its followers believe it or not, that's between them until they come to us to be received by the Catholic Church to profess the Orthodox Fatih (and hence say the above renunciations).
As long as Orthodoxy tries to force me to recant anything that I believe to be a part of revelation, then I will remain where I am.
If you ever wanted to join the Church, no force would be used against you. Instead you would be asked if you renounce certain Roman Catholic teaching. It's entirely up to you to either say Yes! and join the Church or say No! and remain a Roman/Ruthenian Catholic and go home for a cup of tea. But there is no force used..
..........Do you renounce the erroneous belief that it does not suffice to confess our Lord Jesus Christ as the head of the Universal Church; and that a man, to wit, the Bishop of Rome, can be the head of Christ's Body, the Universal Church?
..........Do you renounce the erroneous belief that the holy Apostles did not receive from our Lord equal spiritual authority, but that the holy Apostle Peter was their Prince; and that the Bishop of Rome alone is his successor; and that the Bishops of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch and others are not, equally with the Bishop of Rome, successors of the Apostles?
..........Do you renounce the erroneous belief of those who think that the Pope of Rome is superior to the Ecumenical Councils, and infallible in faith, notwithstanding the fact that several of the Popes have been heretics, and condemned as such by the Councils?
Except, I don't think that's what Catholics believe.
1) the pope isn't head of the church, the way this is implied. He's the Vicar of Christ to give human leadership to the church.
The Vatican has taught us at sword point what it mean by this.
you might want to argue with his holiness:
Pope Benedict XIV
“But whatever can be said about this controverted point of ecclesiastical learning, it is sufficient for us to be able to affirm that the commemoration of the Roman Pontiff in the Mass as well as the prayers said for him in the Sacrifice are considered to be, and are a certain declarative sign, by which the same Pontiff is recognized as the head of the Church, the Vicar of Christ, and the Successor of Saint Peter, and becomes of profession of a mind and will firmly adhering to Catholic unity; as Christian Lupus correctly indicates, writing on the councils (Tom. 4. Editionis Bruxell. pag. 422): This commemoration is the supreme and most distinguished kind of communion.” Nor is this any less proven by the authority of Ivo Flaviniacensis (in Chronicle, p. 228) where it reads: “Let him know that he separates himself from the communion of the whole world, whoever does not mention the name of the Pope in the Canon, for whatever reason of dissension; nor [by the authority of] the well-known Alcuin, who, in his book De Divinis Officiis (chap. 12) wrote this: “ It is certain, as Blessed Pelagius teaches, that those who, for whatever reason of dissension, do not observe the custom of mentioning the name of the Apostolic Pontiff in the sacred mysteries, are separated from the communion of the whole world.” This fact is further proven by a more severe statement of the Supreme Pontiff Pelagius II, who held the Apostolic throne in the sixth century of the Church, and who in his letter contained in the Labbeana Collectio Conciliorum (Tome 5, col 794 sq. and col 810)left this in writing concerning our subject: I am shocked at your separation from the whole Church, which I cannot tolerate; for when blessed Augustine, mindful of Our Lord’s words which placed the foundation of the Church in Apostolic Sees, says that he is in schism whosoever shall separate himself from the authority of or communion with those who preside in these same Sees, and who does not publicly profess that there is no other Church than that which is established in the pontifical roots of the Apostolic Sees, how can you not esteem yourselves to be cut off from the communion of the whole world, if you withhold the mention of my name in the sacred mysteries, as is the custom, in whom, though unworthy, you see at the present time the strength of the Apostolic See through the succession of the episcopate?”
This has also been reiterated lately:
From this much longer review of the new interview/book with BXVI:Sounds no different from Dominus Iesus:
Backtracking from Dominus Iesus? Discussing the conciliar language of particular churches, the pope notes that "the Eastern Churches are genuine particular churches, although they are not in communion with the pope. In this sense, unity with the pope is not constitutive for the particular church" (89; my emphasis)! When I have time I'll have to check this (especially the word "constitutive") against Dominus Iesus and also the 1992 declaration on the Church as communio because it sounds like the pope is introducing an important clarification or nuance here....
17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him. The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches. Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.
I've heard it explained by the Vatican's priests that we are like a puzzle that has only the edge pieces but are missing the center because we "don't have the pope," and other such nonsense. In other words, "it does not suffice to confess our Lord Jesus Christ as the head of the Universal Church."
2) they don't claim the bishops aren't the heirs of the Apostles, only that Peter was the chief for human leadership
They claim that the holy Apostles did not receive from our Lord equal spiritual authority, but that the holy Apostle Peter was their Prince, who alone held the keys to the kingdom, contradicting the Scriptures and the Fathers on the Council of Jerusalem, giving St. James' presidency to St. Peter. They deny that any of their four patriarchs of Antioch are successors of St. Peter as the Bishop of Rome, who they hold alone is his successor. They claim the Bishops of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch and others are not, equally with the Bishop of Rome, successors of the Apostles, claiming that they must receive their pallium from the supreme pontiff. Lumen Gentium and their canon law are quite specific that no bishop or group of bishops may act without their "head," the "Roman [supreme] Pontiff."
3) the popes aren't above ecumenical councils, they are able to be infallible however on certain criteria, but the heretic popes are debatable
Father Ambrose has answered this, I'll just add their canon law on Ecumenical Councils, which I've posted several times.