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.
"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."
The Western bishops got their chance 384 years later at the Council of Ferrara-Florence. St. Mark of Ephesus gave them what you say they deserved and they responded. The Council of Florence is well described by Ivan Ostroumoff in his history of it, q.v. Actually, the Latins had another opportunity in 1274 at Lyons. But nobody of St. Mark's calliber took part, at least none that I am aware of. It did, however, generate another anathema from the East against the filioque heresy in the form of the "Chapters Against Barlaam & Acindynus" proclaimed by the Council of Constantinople (1347) and of Blachernae (1351) found in the Synodicon of Orthodoxy.