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?
As to the question of Anglicans or Lutherans in relation to the Catholic Church:
1) England and Germany are within the Patriarchate of the West, so even if you do not accept the authority of the Bishops of Rome as pope you must concede their right to act as Patriarch of the West. Michael I or the other eastern patriarchs, on the other had, never exercised jurisdiction over the western Church and therefore exceeded their authority as patriarchs.
2) Additionally, Pius III convened the Council of Trent to declare on the matter. (For the moment I will refrain from the discussion of whether this should be considered an ecumenical council [the Catholic POV] or a local synod of the Patriarchy of the West [the Orthodox POV I believe]). The point is that Pius wanted to remove all doubt about what the Church taught.
It is here that I would like to introduce the important difference between heresy and error. The (Roman Catholic) Code of Canon Law describes heresy as "the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith" [c.751] As I have pointed out before, even the Greek Fathers disagreed among themselves and some of them must have been in error. But at the time they were teaching with what they believed was the true mind of the Church and no one doubts that they would have changed their opinions if corrected by the Church. Therefore, although we might find error is some of their teachings we would not call them heretics.
This, I believe, should be the right attitude of the eastern bishops toward their western brothers. Patriarch Michael had every right to point out what he perceived as error in the pope and the western bishops. He erred, however, in unilaterally calling it heresy. In the past when there was a dispute within the Church a council was called to resolve the matter. This allowed two equally important things to happen: a) a final resolution of the orthodox position, and b) a declaration of the decision to the whole Church. Those who were then merely in error were then given a chance to either conform themselves to Church teaching or to be recognized as true heretics, obstinate in their refusal to submit to the authority of the Church.
Patriarch Michael, however, short-circuited the process. He presumed to make a ruling on his own authority and required the bishops in the West to submit to his decision. (Pretty much acting in a pontifical manner.) This is why I keep insisting that there is no declaration by the entire Church which can call the filioque and other disputed issues heretical. The western bishops have not obstinately rejected the teaching of the Church. They propose that their formulations are in keeping with what the Church has always taught.
Nor can you appeal to the fact that four out of the five patriarchs joined in the condemnation of the West. The Church has never relied on only the consensus of the patriarchs but on the consensus of the entire body of bishops. By your own admission, the Orthodox believe that all bishops are equal. As such the western bishops should have by right been consulted before the declaration of heresy. If after the declaration of an ecumenical council (and for the sake of argument I will grant that it decided in favor of the eastern bishops) the pope and the western bishops continued in their position and denied the declared teaching of the Church then they could rightly be called heretical, obstinate in their rejection of Church authority. As it stand today, all we have are the private judgments of the eastern patriarchs and bishops. Even if he were correct on the theological question, Patriarch Michael sinned against charity in not consulting the entire body of bishops and giving the western bishops an manifest declaration of the entire Church to which they, the western bishops, could accept or reject.
An interesting but false reading of history.
The split of 1054 was between Cerularius and Humbert. The rest of the Christian world was blisfully ignorant of this, and continued merrily along in communion with each other. The Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem only came to an agreement with this split between Rome and Constantinople around 1100, when they refused the Crusader states. The Church in Albania, Serbia and Bulgaria was even later, adhering to Roman Communion into the 1200's.
Mentioning the Patriarchs of these other cities in the 1500's is a little comical. By that point they were little more than ornamental court puppets of the Patriarch of Constantinople (the Pope of Rome also had similar ornamental Patriarchal puppets), who did not even live in those cities, two of which (Alexandria and Antioch) did not even exist any longer. Of course they danced the jig of their master.