Ho,ho....Now come on. The Reformation fathers traced their views back to the early days of the church as well. I often cite Augustine as my source-not the Reformed fathers.
In addition, you can't really say that ALL your doctrinal beliefs can be traced back to the early part of the Church for the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic are at schism with each other. You left in 1000AD. Who’s to blame and why don't you agree with the RCC interpretation? Do you believe in the Nicene Creed as the Roman Catholic doctrine shows? Do you accept the Pope as your final authority? Why is there an Orthodox Church and an RCC if tradition is the same? All these are legitimate questions.
To say that the Orthodox and RCC have built their foundations upon the early traditions and the Reformers on something made up 1500 years later is simply not true.
"Ho,ho....Now come on. The Reformation fathers traced their views back to the early days of the church as well. I often cite Augustine as my source-not the Reformed fathers."
Yes, Augustine gets cited a lot (but an awful lot of St. Augustine gets swept under the rug by Protestantism), and a smattering of other Fathers, selectively. But as to who lives and breathes the Fathers, I'm afraid that no-one comes close to the Orthodox -- and that includes Catholicism. We don't have a Catechism, we don't have a systematic theology, we don't have a series of Papal encyclicals and bulls a mile long. We just have the patristic tradition -- one that lives still today.
You might consider that to be good, you might consider that to be bad, but it is how it is.
"In addition, you can't really say that ALL your doctrinal beliefs can be traced back to the early part of the Church for the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic are at schism with each other."
You are right. In every place where Catholicism and Orthodoxy genuinely differ (there are points where there have been true misunderstandings), Orthodoxy considers that Catholicism varies from the teachings and practice of Holy Tradition.
"You left in 1000AD."
See the above as to who we feel left whom.
"Who’s to blame..."
Depends on whom you ask. Obviously our Catholic friends think differently.
"...and why don't you agree with the RCC interpretation?"
Because of the reasons stated above.
"Do you believe in the Nicene Creed as the Roman Catholic doctrine shows?"
Besides the filioque, there are some nuances of understanding that differ if one goes through the Creed line by line.
"Do you accept the Pope as your final authority?"
Of course not. Neither did the undivided Church, although the Roman see was held in *very* high regard because of the orthodoxy of that see in general through the first centuries of the Church. That see was also first in honor, and the bishop of Rome was turned to for assistance in settling disputes within and between other local churches because of that honor and that reputation for orthodoxy. With the loss of that orthodoxy, all of that respect, deference, and primacy was lost. It was a loss to the Church.
"Why is there an Orthodox Church and an RCC if tradition is the same?"
There is only one Holy Tradition. As I stated above, where Roman Catholic and Orthodox doctrines diverge, we believe that the Catholic church has misinterpreted Tradition.
In no small part, this is the result of the development of the idea of universal authority and primacy of the Pope. Eastern Orthodoxy looks very static and fossilized, but the reality is that we are constantly in a state of reformation, in the sense that we are constantly looking at present actions, worship, belief, etc... and making sure that it lines up with Holy Tradition. We do this by being immersed in the Scriptures, the writings of the Fathers, and the liturgical services of the Church. There is a constant "return to roots" going on.
In Catholicism after the schism, there was nothing to stop things from changing. The balance of the East was gone, the power was very centralized in Rome, discouraging dissent and criticism. There is plenty of both going on in Orthodoxy all the time. Trust me!
"All these are legitimate questions."
Yes they are.
"To say that the Orthodox and RCC have built their foundations upon the early traditions and the Reformers on something made up 1500 years later is simply not true."
I cannot speak for Catholicism, because in general, Orthodoxy traditionally does not look on Catholicism as being patristically grounded in the same way that we are. The role of the Magesterium has come to overshadow the Fathers in Catholicism -- they are quoted, but more in a "proof-texting" kind of way, IMHO, to lend ballast to the declarations of the Magesterium.
This is compared to our sense of striving to be "inside" the patristic mind, and our belief that no-one -- absolutely no-one -- is infallible in any sense of the word, and that the teachings and words and actions of any bishop can and must be scrutinized for faithfulness to Holy Tradition.
But speaking from the Orthodox perspective, I really cannot see how there is any comparison between the living continuity with the early centuries that we have, and the limited use of patristic writings within Protestantism.
I certainly did not mean to imply that the Reformers took a Bible and created doctrines out of whole cloth based on the Scripture. They most obviously have been heavily influenced by theh traditions of the Church in many ways.
What I do mean to say, and have said before, is that in general, a traditional Protestant is going to approach the writings of the Reformation fathers with a basic standpoint of trust and belief -- with points of disagreement being expected to be the exception. That same Protestant is going to approach the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Justin Martyr, St. John Chrysostom, etc... with a general approach of distrust, expecting to find a few usable points and a little ballast, but with the point of view that where these Fathers disagree with Protestant distinctives, the Fathers are wrong, and the reformers are right.
If the Reformers had turned to the writings of the Fathers for the answers to where Rome had gone wrong and to what needed to be changed, there wouldn't have been a Reformation. There would have been a Reunion. This is a matter of great sadness to Orthodoxy. It is worth reading the letters exchanged between the Tubingen theologians and the Patriarch Jeremiah of Constantinople in the immediate wake of the Reformation, if one wants to see this in rather stark terms.
What I am describing is in terms of traditional Catholicism and Orthdooxy. Things have made some changes as a result of Vatican II. From the standpoint of formal doctrine, the changes have been positive, and Orthodoxy and Catholicism has theoretically drawn closer to Orthodox positions. From the standpoint of praxis, the post-Vat II Catholic ways are farther from Orthodox praxis than ever -- and this may prove to be more of a practical problem than the filioque ever was.
I know I'll get flamed from all directions for this post... But they are things that need to be said in light of your valid criticisms.