One basic rule of thumb to understand in Catholic/Protestant conversations is that it is not the case that Catholics rely on Sacred Tradition and Protestants don't. Rather, Catholics (and by this I mean "educated Catholics speaking out of the Magisterial teaching of the Church") rely on Sacred Tradition and know they do, while Protestants rely on (parts) of Sacred Tradition and (usually) don't know they do.

Again the Council of Nice determined that bishops should be elected by their own churches, in the presence of some neighboring bishop or of several.  The same was observed also in the West and in the Latin churches, as Cyprian and Augustine testify. For Cyprian says in his fourth letter to Cornelius: Accordingly, as regards the divine observance and apostolic practice, you must diligently keep and practice what is also observed among us and in almost all the provinces, that for celebrating ordination properly, whatsoever bishops of the same province live nearest should come together with the people for whom a pastor is being appointed, and the bishop should be chosen in the presence of the people, who most fully know the life of each one, which we also have seen done among us at the ordination of our colleague Sabinus, that by the suffrage of the entire brotherhood, and by the judgment of the bishops who had assembled in their presence, the episcopate was conferred and hands laid on him.

Cyprian calls this custom a divine tradition and an apostolic observance, and affirms that it is observed in almost all the provinces.

Since, therefore, neither ordination nor confirmation was sought from a bishop of Rome in the greater part of the world in the Latin and Greek churches, it is sufficiently apparent that the churches did not then accord superiority and domination to the bishop of Rome.

Had the Reformers simply discarded those errant traditions of Rome, they may well have reunited with the Orthodox Church.

Even the Lutherans did not jettison all the errors of Rome, and where they did jettison them, they went overboard.

The dialogue with the Orthodox seems to underscore that. I don't know a lot about what has been said, but from what I have heard, it sounds like the Lutherians had already decided on such doctrines as sola fide and were expecting the Patriarch to agree with them.

At that time, there were essentially two major claimants to being the true Church: the Roman Church, and the Orthodox Church. A logic that places oneself under Tradition would seem to lead one to the solution that, if the Roman Church is wrong, then the Orthodox Church must be it. The Lutherans had the opportunity to rejoin the Orthodox Church, but didn't, and insisted on doing their own thing.

Of course, most of this (aside from the dialogue with Constantinople) applies also to the Calvinists and other Reformers. I don't want you to think I'm just picking on Lutherans here. ;-)

temporary

Well, to be fair, we did have different perspectives of just what the "errors of Rome" were even though there were some common points of agreement. For example, we saw no pressing need to revert the filioque clause from the Nicene Creed that the Lutheran Confesssors entered into the Book of Concord.

Well, it is pretty implicit to our understanding of the nature of the Christian faith. Of course, on that note, we also see vestiges of the same sola fide sentiment that we are gearing towards even amongst those Christians who deny the formal claim thereof...

It's sort of like how the Orthodox and Catholics are stymied by the Protestants who claim they have no tradition, but really have one anyway. We're basically speaking past each other to the point that communication is moot.

That presumes an ecclesiology that requires a visible infrastructure in the maintenance of its descent. Protestant ecclesiology has always understood the Church in the same manner as the eternal Communion of Saints, with the visible structures as only a temporary and limited manifestation thereof.

Right; my point was that, if the Lutherans really were concerned about following the Traditions sent by God, they would have perhaps taken a bit more seriously the fact that their understanding of Christianity was different from the Orthodox.

In the East, we don't have "merits" and all that. Rather, sin is seen primarily as a sickness, and Death is the enemy that Christ conquered by His Resurrection. The ultimate end of salvation is what we call theosis or deification; as we are healed, by God's grace, from sin, we are made like God. As St. Athanasus, I belive it was, put it, "God became man so that man, by grace, might become God."

God gives us grace, but we have the choice whether to work with that grace and become more like Him, or to work against that grace and become more like the Devil.

Protestant "always" = 500 years (since the time of the Reformers). Orthodox "always" = 2000 years (since the time of Christ). And the Orthodox have "always" understood the Church in the same manner as the Body of Christ, united by the Bishop ("where the Bishop is, there is the Church"), each Bishop being in communion with the others.

And how could Paul call the Church "the pillar and ground of truth" if he's referring to some invisible body?

Of course, if you don't believe that there is one Church that has kept the Faith without erring, you're pretty much stuck with the "invisible Church;" I however, believe that the Church that Christ founded through His Apostles still exists, and still holds fast to the "faith that was once delivered to the saints.

Like I said, if I were really calling you arrogant, I'd have to call myself the archbishop of hubris. :P

Holy BMAn Emperor of Hubris

Certainly, Luther and other Reformers could appeal to Tradition in their rejection of the Papacy; the Orthodox Church would agree with them on many of those points. The Papacy? Indulgences? Heck, the whole idea of Purgatory? Even some of what the Roman Church says about Mary! These are things the Orthodox see as innovations in Roman dogma.

Well, all I can say is that the Orthodox Church considers it's current teachings to be the same as what has been taught "everywhere, always, and by all" as Orthodox doctrine, that we hold to the same "faith that was once delivered unto the saints", without change, since the time of the Apostles.

Also, we don't hold that we are a "branch;" the Orthodox Church is the Church.

You may say that is arrogance; perhaps you perceive it that way. Then again, a Muslim may think it's arrogant if a Christian says Christ is the only way to heaven. So, what if we're right? Is it arrogant to speak the truth?

And, strictly speaking, a rejection of polygamy is not a part of the Christian faith. When the New Testament wants leaders of congregations to have only one wife, that implies openness to the possibility that some members might have more than one. Polygamists who convert to Christianity are not obliged by the Christian faith to abandon their other wives or husbands. This is a cultural matter, like the prohibition on eating cats, dogs, and horses, despite the fact that they're a part of this nutritious breakfast according to the New Testament.

Of course, since we believe that marriage is eternal, we treat remarrying after the death of a spouse like remarrying after divorce...a second marriage is usually allowed, but the service for a second marriage is very penitential, unlike the service for a first marriage, which is very celebratory.

The fullness of the faith is only one marriage. Second marriages are allowed because of our weakness. Second, parallel marriages are not allowed.

it doesn't say marriage isn't eternal.
Christ says: "At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage"

This still squares perfectly with Orthodox doctrine. They aren't remarrying, at the resurrection because they're still married. If resurrection is of our totality, body and soul etc. and when two individuals enter into holy matrimony they join body and soul (one flesh etc. etc.) it's only reasonable that this spiritual bond (united by God) would remain in the restoration and continuation of life.

It's precisely this brokenness that is unangelic about the whole deal.

(though still the bigger part being a redirection from their deceptive question toward a demonstration of the truth of the resurrection (a far more important truth))

Which seems, incidentally, to do great harm to the whole "one flesh" theology which appeals back to Genesis 3, and which argues that marriage is an inherent part of the created nature of man. At best, it would seem, marriage (the union of two into one) is a foreshadowing of the union between God and man.