Wow...haven't we defined or identified this several times already? I refer to the conglomeration of theological speculation, folklore, legend, customs, episcopal decrees given as infallible, etc. that grew up over the centuries leading to the Reformation.
It depends on what you mean by these, whether or not we agree/disagree. Our sources of authority, along with Scripture, are the Creeds, the Councils, those things that are included within the Liturgy.
Infallible is not a word we tend to use broadly in the EOC ...
It's said to be a second stream of divine revelation equal in authority to Holy Scripture and to have been believed throughout the church continuously since the beginning and handed down from the Apostles, but that is simply stipulated.
We would reject the first definition, I think, and accept the second.
Famous examples of doctrines established by means of Holy Tradition but absent from Scripture would be the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption of Mary, Papal Infallibility, Purgatory, and Transubstantiation.
We reject all of these except for the assumption of Mary. And the Assumption of Mary is not really a major point AT ALL. We don't put the Assumption on the liturgical calendar. We do put the dormition on it. It is theologically important to us that THE VIRGIN MARY DIED A PHYSICAL DEATH, as all human people do. And it doesn't appear that you disagree with that point.
I don't believe so.
Look, it's possible to tease almost any dogma out of Scripture by saying that it's "hinted at" or by pointing to one word or phrase, often taken out of context, and then building an elaborate and specific dogma upon it, or to rationalize (as has been done in a number of these posts) that if A is scripturally correct, then it follows that B and, from that, C must "logically" follow from it. All of that is actually improper; it's extra-Scriptural.
We believe that the Bible is God's revelation and that it is the unequalled standard for determining doctrine.
Of course not, but neither can it be made official or made into a doctrine that the people are required to believe. We call strictly optional ideas "adiaphora."
Stay with the definition/explanation and I think you'll be all right with this, quite independent of whether or not you are in agreement.
It is. But tradition (not the so-called "Sacred Tradition" or "Holy Tradition" concepts) and reason are simply used to assist in understanding Scripture. It is not the case that these three are equally authoritative.
Well, quote simply, we would say that there is a body of Truth that has been delivered to the Church. Primary within that, is Holy Scripture, meaning it has highest authority.
What we do not allow is for someone to twist a private interpretation of Scripture to go against the way the Church has always understood it. Though I will say there is a great deal of leeway there - not everything is tightly defined and we have freedom within certain parameters.
Honestly, I don't think we are defining either Holy Tradition or the authority of Scripture in the same way. You insist in making Tradition separate from Scripture, something that CAN oppose it, and thus potentially subjugate it in terms of authority. We do not view Scripture as being apart from Holy Tradition, but rather as being the most important part of Holy Tradition. It is really impossible for us to conceive of a competition between the two for authority. But if there WERE any competition, Scripture would be the highest authority.
What we do not believe is that Scripture contains everything we know. Again, St. Paul refers to holding the traditions/teachings handed down by word and by epistle, which would explicitly refute the kind of SS that demands anything not in Scripture be rejected. But as you say, that is not your position.
Really, intercessions of the Saints is a good example, since you have made aggrandizement of them your reason, saying that God has said He will not share certain things with any creature.
It would need a better understanding of how we view these things, which
@dzheremi has discussed a bit, I think. It is because we honor what God does through them - if they intercede and a miracle results, we still attribute the miracle to God and praise Him for it. We NEVER worship the Saints - to do so would be great heresy. But at the same time, while God has said that He would not share His glory with another, what did Christ mean when He specifically said in His prayer (John 17) "I have given them the glory which you have given me?" It sounds like a contradiction, but we ARE glorified in Christ. It is always by the will and grace of God though, and to His glory.
Again, I'm not trying to convince of any practice. But your objection relies on a particular interpretation of particular Scriptures.
Even while the Apostles were present, they recognized that people's consciences and understanding would not be the same, in explaining how we should not judge or stumble one another. I guess my point is that they realized there would be confusion. Today if we have ONLY the Scriptures, and not the Apostles, and eject the historic understanding of the Church of those Scriptures, then no doubt we should expect even more confusion.
ETA: too long a break between my reading of your posts and my reply. I see you mentioned homage, worship of the Saints implied in asking their intercession. That is exactly why I don't use the term "pray to the Saints" because people will use a modern interpretation of "pray" and assume worship. We do NOT worship the Saints. No more than I would be worshipping my neighbor in my old English example "I pray you, neighbor, lend me some eggs".
It is an explanation. I have no intention of trying to do that - and no illusions that it would happen even if I was trying to convince you.)
