Graves, do you not see that you are proving my point? All the anathemas that you mention are from only eastern sources. As a member of the Western Patriarchate, why should I give more credence to the decisions of the patriarchs in the East than to my own patriarch?
I was responding to just one point that you made, the one as to unilateral anathemas. My point was that the anathema of A.D. 1054 was not unilateral. It was quadrapartite (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem). And the confirmations that followed were for the benefit of the Orthodox.
Now as to why all Roman Catholics should flee from Pope Benedict XVI to an Orthodox temple for admission as catechumens, let's say you were not a Roman Catholic but instead an Anglican under the Erastian spiritual guidance of Queen Elizabeth II. What do you think my answer should be to your own question? Or let's say you were a Lutheran under a Lutheran bishop. Same question. In all these instances, my answer is the same. Orthodoxy is preferable to heresy.
And Orthodoxy does not change. It does not suddenly become something else.
The West, by contrast has changed. It was one thing in 800 A.D. and by A.D. 1054 had become something else. Worse, yet, it has kept on changing through the years. Because of this a 16th century Roman Catholic would look at you guys today and would say, "Ya know what? You're nuts!" Why do you think so many RCs go to SSPV and SSPX chapels? For their health?