My experience with RCs and EOs, who view righteousness as cooperation with God through "infusion of grace," is what we Lutherans see as a fundamentally legalistic view of Scripture as purely a source of doctrine, all of which is more or less equally important by virtue of the fact that it all comes from God, so the only real questions in respect of Scripture are extent of the canon and the authority to interpret, for which RCs and EOs look to the hierarchy, from which they also receive as binding certain non-Scriptural teachings.
You certainly expressed your views very succinctly and respectfully and I don't wish to do debate not only because you were not being combative, but because this isn't the place, but I don't think EOs would typically (or accurately) express our view on Scripture in quite that way. "binding" and other terms you employed are very western in nature. Not that that is bad or good in and of itself, it's just a very western approach.
That's really the crux of why I am here, to understand you guys because SS has really only been a dialog between certain protestant groups (first of which are the Lutherans) and the RCC. It is a debate the Orthodox Church has never had a perspective in historically as Sola Scriptura vs NOT Sola Scriptura is absent in the East. There has never been a "versus" anything.
So, the concept of binding and particular terms to apply to the exact place of the Scriptures is virtually absent in the East unlike the West. That's not good or bad, it just is because history played out that way. Therefore, I am here to truly understand how you guys understand the place of the Scriptures and Sola Scriptura in the context of the Church and, perhaps more importantly, how you don't.
And I have found all of your responses so helpful in this. Even the part I quoted above was helpful because I know what you meant. Pointing out that that doesn't represent the EO perspective was just a nit-picky thing and didn't override the usefulness of your helpful post.
Anyway, I thought I would use it as a springboard to let you guys in better on the ultimate purpose of my thread: to build understanding of your approach on the part of the EO's to see if there aren't perhaps places where we might unexpectedly agree.
I think in many of the typical debates (faith vs works, Sola Scriptura) we understand each other so poorly because our language is so different and, while I am not suggesting we see it all the same or that it's just semantics, there are perhaps areas where we on both sides have knee-jerk reactions to our words not so much because we truly understand what's being said but because we interpret the words without understanding each other's theological culture.
So, don't worry, while this is ecumenical in nature, it is not a kumbayya session. lol It's about YOU guys and YOUR beliefs.
Thanks so much for your thoughts everyone. I look forward to more insight.
Josh