I have more respect towards the Eastern Orthodox than I do for the Roman Catholic simply because the Orthodox split from Rome when they made it an issue of salvation that all must be in submission to the Pope of Rome. As the other differences (not back seat at all) have still not been corrected by Rome - a catch-22 situation if I ever saw one, there will not be a unification this side of heaven.
I also know that the Orthodox do NOT see the "solas" in the same way as you falsely described them. Specifically, sola fide, because the doctrine CAN be proved by Scripture and is NOT "requiring no acts of love and charity" but an understanding that a genuine faith WILL be evident in a changed heart that will be demonstrated by actions that please God. "Faith alone" concerns the doctrine of justification and is, and has been, understood as coming from the grace of God and not human merit. The Reformed formula is, “We are justified by faith alone but not by a faith that is alone". At one time, even the Roman Catholic church held to this view but changed over time especially in reaction to the Reformation. It is a misunderstanding of sola fide to claim a man's works are not important to God. Good works are evidence of genuine faith but it is not the works which justify us.
The doctrine of sola Scriptura as "excluding doctrinal teachings passed down through the Church from the apostles in the form of Sacred Tradition" is also a misrepresentation of the doctrine of the Reformers. Instead, it is the truth that ONLY the Scriptures are divinely-inspired and serve as the rule of faith for Christians. The writings of early church fathers only confirms that this was their view of the sacred Scriptures and they consistently state that all that is presented to be of the faith must be backed up by God's word. Sola Scriptura is the belief in the material and formal sufficiency of Scripture. From http://www.christiantruth.com/scriptureandchurchfathers.html:
Let this be a firm principle: No other word is to be held as the Word of God, and given place as such in the church, than what is contained first in the Law and the Prophets, than in the writings of the apostles; and the only authorized way of teaching in the church is by the prescription and standard of his Word. From this also we infer that the only thing granted to the apostles was that which the prophets had of old. They were to expound the ancient Scripture and to show that what is taught there has been fulfilled in Christ. Yet they were not to do this except from the Lord, that is, with Christ’s Spirit as precursor in a certain measure dictating the words...Yet this, as I have said, is the difference between the apostles and their successors: the former were sure and genuine scribes of the Holy Spirit, and their writings are therefore to be considered oracles of God; but the sole office of others is to teach what is provided and sealed in the Holy Scriptures. We therefore teach that faithful ministers are now not permitted to coin any new doctrine, but that they are simply to cleave to that doctrine to which God has subjected all men without exception.
Calvin also states emphatically that the doctrines preached by the Reformers reflected the teaching and practice of the fathers themselves, thereby claiming historical continuity with the early Church. Calvin repudiates the charge that the teaching of sola Scriptura is unhistorical. He writes:
Moreover, they unjustly set the ancient fathers against us (I mean the ancient writers of a better age of the church) as if in them they had supporters of their own impiety. If the contest were to be determined by patristic authority, the tide of victory—to put it very modestly—would turn to our side...With a frightful to do, they overwhelm us as despisers and adversaries of the fathers! But we do not despise them; in fact, if it were to our present purpose, I could with no trouble at all prove that the greater part of what we are saying today meets their approval.
Thus, in embracing and teaching sola Scriptura, the Reformers claimed to be restoring to the Church a principle that would find overall patristic consent and, therefore, historical validation. But this is, after all, only a claim. The question is, Can the claim be validated from the writings of the fathers as Calvin affirms? In this section, we will examine what the Church fathers taught about Scripture and tradition. We will find that the Reformers were correct in claiming patristic support for the principle of sola Scriptura and did, in fact, restore the Church to the position which she had universally embraced and practiced for centuries. It is the Roman Catholic teaching on tradition and authority which is unbiblical and unhistorical.
I invite you to further read the article linked.
“I have more respect towards the Eastern Orthodox than I do for the Roman Catholic simply because the Orthodox split from Rome when they made it an issue of salvation that all must be in submission to the Pope of Rome”
Of course you do. Did I expect anything different. Let me end by saying........
“You are Peter, and upon this rock I will will build my church”.
The Catholic Church (which Eastern Orthodox are part of) was founded by Christ. Protestants faiths were started by Martin Luther. I belong to the Church started by Christ, that has been around for 2,000 years, not some off-shoot faith started by a disgrunted Catholic priest, who was excommunicated from the church for being a heretic.
The Orthodox Church requires works for salvation. In other words it does not believe in sola scriptura It has the exact same sacraments as the Roman Church and holds Mary in the same high esteem, prays to the dead, and confesses their sins to a priest, and. I think you get my drift.