Unless I misunderstand what you mean by the "one and the same Faith" I would respectfully disagree. With regards to the different view between Catholics and Orthodox on the Immaculate Conception (as one example) both are saying they are following tradition set down by the fathers. Yet, both hold different views. I'm sure the Catholics wouldn't minimize the Immaculate Conception. Their whole theology is practically built around it. Yet, the Orthodox do not believe in the Immaculate Conception and they say they're following tradition. Someone has to be wrong.
The isolation you rightfully suggest shows different doctrines based upon "tradition". How can that possibly be if God leads "one and the same catholic and Apostolic Church"? Moreover the Catholic website states that the Immaculate Conception was the Church's tradition for 1200 years. That would imply that the Orthodox have strayed from sound teachings.
Protestants here are constantly told by the Orthodox and Catholics that their doctrine is based upon tradition set down by the Church and these have always been part of the Church. We are chastised for NOT following tradition. The simple fact is that both groups review and develop doctrine and then find the writings that support that doctrine and reject the writings that don't. To be fair, the Orthodox makes no pretense of following this approach as I posted from the Orthodox website several posts back. Our Catholic friends, OTOH, would like us to believe that various RCC positions were always held by the Church. Doctrines such as the Immaculate Conceptions puts them squarely at odds with the Orthodox view and is a prime example.
I'm baffled how one can say the Orthodox and Catholic view are essentially the same and I have listed the doctrinal differences. But what is stranger is that each Church state they base their views upon the tradition of the fathers. Perhaps that was Luther error. Had he just provided a few snippets from early church fathers, it would have confused everyone for the next 500 years.
Yes, the "tradition" is that both Churches hold Mary to be without sin. Just "how" it happened is a different story. The belief of the Church is one thing; the "explanation" is another.
The Orthodox could not have developed an Immaculate Conception hypothesis because it would be meaningless in terms of the Eastern understanding of our Fall. The West, which also acknowledges our Fall, nevertheless believes that we are born dead in sin (St.Augustine's innovation); the Church until that time, from the beginning by all accounts, considered our Fall to be spiritual sickness, a defect, disability, in need of a Healer, not spiritual death as is the case with fallen angels.
You are confusing mechanism with the beliefs. Thus, we both believe that the Eucharist is Real Presence, real Body and Blood of Christ. We believe that man has free will. We believe that God is Triune, that Christ has two distinct unconfused natures and will, one human the other divine. We believe in Mary's undefiled virginity, her assumption in body and soul, apostolic succession, priesthood, we believe Mary was without sin, etc.
We agree on all key beliefs. Our Liturgies are externally different but internally the same. The importance of the Liturgy is central in both Churches. We both consider the Church catholic. We have Saints among the popes, and they have saints among the Greeks.
You are creating a false dichotomy, HD, as Kolo already reminded you. We may not agree on the "mechanism" of how the Eucharist becomes Real Presence, but we believe equally that it does. We may not agree with the "mechanism" of Mary's sinlessness, but we believe in the same and venerate her in the same way.
Anyway, our differences did not result in 33,000 different "churches," as is the case with Protestants, but in two different outlooks and mindsets on the same Faith for reasons I outline briefly before.
Perhaps that was Luther error. Had he just provided a few snippets from early church fathers, it would have confused everyone for the next 500 years
Not really. Anyone who started to teach that one should sin boldly could not confuse anyone in the Church to consider it as Tradition, since no Church Father, as Kolokotronis repeatedly shows, even those who walked with Apostles, never, ever espoused any interpretation similar to Luther's heresy.
Luther would have welcomed a single bishop to give him the legitimacy of the apostolic succession, but he had none. Of all the Fathers through all these centuries, Luther was able to claim only St.Augustine, a distorted St.Augustine at that. Luther was not even happy with the Apostles. He hated the Book of James and wanted it removed form the NT. He was creating his own man-made "religion," HD, and his own man-made "church," IMHO.