Orthodox Schisms over present Papal issues.  

finger-pointing-left16.gif

The division over this is huge in Orthodoxy. It started in 1964 with Pope Paul VI, John Paul II took it a step further, then further again by former Nazi, Pope Benedict XVI,  then further by the present (fake) Pope Francis.

Many Eastern Orthodox laity and clergy (so called) recognize the preposterous nature of lifting anathemas, especially in the light of declaring their church infallible - so - was it all a church mistake? Will they say that, in spite of Catholic clergy being declared as administering "graceless sacraments" that was another big mistake?

Laughably both the Popes and the Patriarchs (Titular Head's) may both be manoeuvring and dreaming of becoming the head of a future united fake mega church. 

notes

well how did the present Pope get to be the bishop over the Roman territory, which is the official Orthodox position, since Pope Francis and Kirill, if he was not appointed by Orthodox bishops?

1) If all the (Catholic) bishops of Rome became non bishops, after the 1054 Schism, then as the Orthodox are supposed to love everyone in all nations, who were the "true Orthodox bishops" appointed in the 1,000 years after the split? Give is the list of the "true apostolic bishops" in all those vast countries over which the bishop of Rome held jurisdiction before the split, up until this present day.

2) Did Kirill say the Popes that were supposed to be anathema were never anathema? Or they were and he lifted the anathema only from the present Pope Francis at the time? That makes no sense as the Popes believe the same infallible Pope heresy and that he is Head of the Church (the title that the new testament says belongs to Jesus).