In other words, "It's a decision with which I don't agree, therefore, I will pretend that others don't, either- and ignore the ones who do."
"I will pretend that others don't" implies that I am making up the idea that there are other who condemn the lifting of the anathemas. I am most certainly not making this up. There are probably dozens of them just on this forum. I could start a thread asking them to register themselves if you are so suspicious?
And no, I am not ignoring those who do agree with the lifting of the anathemas. I'm just confident that they are wrong.
Since when does a decision require unanimity from all people on the Earth?
It certainly doesn't require it, particularly it doesn't require those who have fallen into heresy. However, it is clear that the dissidents have not fallen into heresy. More fellow churches should have been consulted because of the collegial spirit of the Church. But Constantinople just chose to ignore the fact that these anathemas have become for many of the faithful symbolic of the errors of Rome so that it could unilaterally lift the anathemas between it and Rome because it was convenient.
Wasn't it the consensus of the Fathers that counted?
In many cases, whether there is a consensus, and if there is what it is is quite often disagreed upon and argued among the Orthodox. I just happen to be of the party that believes that the lifting of the anathemas violates the consensus of the Fathers.
And since the two leaders who undertook the 1965 decision were the leaders of the same churches that had excommunicated each other to begin with, they were precisely the ones who had reason to do that.
That's a very legalistic approach. You are not caring to look at the spirit of the anathemas and what they have come to represent for the faithful.
Yes, many do recognize it. Like it or not.
I know and never suggested otherwise.
A thing does not cease to be legitimate because it's not your favorite.
I know this also. But I think there is more reason than that to believe that it is illegitimate.
I wasn't aware that ideas stick to each other like iron shavings to a magnet. You can't add things to a bill just by thought- you have to write these things. It's the way church business is done.
The fact that the anathema against Rome has come to be symbolic of all its errors is frequently evidenced in articles accounting hard-liners to refer to them in this way. IIRC, such was done just in the recent Cyprus debacle.
The excommunications were taken away in 1965, but you can't pretend that never happened. Sorry.
The letter of the anathema was taken away but the spirit of it has remained in the minds of many of the Orthodox.