Let's try it this way (completely leaving aside ecclesiological issues and in no particular order):
1. The Scriptures crystallise the Apostolic tradition.
I'd say 1 is my big problem because I don't think the Orthodox really believe this.
Why not do with Holy Tradition what Orthodox do with the (to us Brits weird) version of OSAS they so often allude to? "By their fruits ye shall know them." Leaning on Tradition leads to all manner of accretions which run counter to the plain scriptures: prayer to the dead; prayer for the dead; baptism of people who do not believe; the need for centuries of episcopal ordination to priesthood; priestly vestments; and doubtless many others which do not spring immediately to mind. There is a thread about them.
Look at where a doctrine leads to, and compare its end with the scriptures, rather than the first steps of its beginning.
Pastor David, with the greatest of respect to you, I do not believe any of those things run counter to the plain meaning of the Scripture. I would accept an argument that they are present in an inchoate or nebulous way. I might also accept an argument that such things are simply not present in the Scriptures though are not inconsistent with them.
For the moment, can we lay aside the argument that there is, in fact, no such thing as a "plain meaning" of Scripture and that all Scripture-interpreation is done within the context of a tradition?
Let's take the example of vesting as our starting point ...
Even if there is no Scriptural injunction that the presbyter/elder vest when liturgising, is it not a beautiful and spiritually fruitful discipline? I can think of the following advantages of the practice just off the top of my head:
1. When the presbyter/elder vests, he prays the prayers of vesting. These prayers remind him that his hands and his strength, by which he will offer the Holy Things on behalf of the faithful, are not his own but the Lord's. Every part of his body is dedicated to the Lord as he vests.
2. When the presbyter/elder stands at the Holy Table, his own person -- his tastes, preferences, personality and gifts, and even body shape -- is obscured by the vestments. Our one and true High Priest is more easily perceived when the one standing at the Holy Table disappears.
3. While there is nothing inherently evil about a business suit or t-shirt-and-jeans, the first is a symbol of commerce and industry and the second is a symbol of the casual. By setting aside certain vestments for the offering of the Holy Things, our very garb is sanctified to the Lord.
4. When not vested, the Lord's ministers, elders and overseers wear simple black garb, reminding them that it is in offering the Holy Things to the Lord that the royal priesthood of the people is manifest: it does not attach to them in particular as persons.
5. The wearing of vestments allows the easy identification of the Lord's ministers, elders and overseers, facilitating good order and discipline in the Church of Christ.
Why is the practice of vesting (for example), properly understood
, contrary to the Scripture?
I readily admit that you won't find a verse that says "and make sure the overseer wears a broad, white band around his neck", but so what?