Thank you both for the replies.
I wasn't thinking of not believing certain doctrines, but wondered more what the "limit" of Holy Tradition is.
Roman Catholics have a distinction between Dogma, Doctrine and then non-doctrinal teaching. The former two pertain to matters of Faith while the latter does not. I think all are presumed to be true, but it does not necessarily affect your salvation if you stop believing in a matter of non-doctrinal tradition. I wonder if there is an equivalent to this in Orthodoxy. If there is any way of knowing when legend or even reliable traditions become part of the Holy Tradition.
And what do you mean by infallible?
Free from theological and historical error. The Resurrection (I presume) would be a infallible teaching because it is true historically and theologically. At least, this has been my understanding.
So, is there anything specific you are having trouble with?
I am not necessarily talking about traditions such as the Entry into the Temple by the Theotokos, which appear quite early (although I am struggling), but minor things such as the idea that St. Luke wrote the first Icon or that the High Priest said This or that exact words to Mary as she entered the temple. It is the minor details that don't necessarily appear in the text of the services (something I have heard is a standard of sorts) but are nevertheless encountered by anyone researching these topics.
I love infallible
. As you say, it means something like "free from error" or better yet "ain't wrong". But we all being good neo-Platonists, know that the privation of something doesn't the opposite make. So infallible
certainly doesn't mean "true".
Orthodox don't (or I haven't ever heard it used) use the word infallible
. As marc obliquely allude to above, it is more of a consensus over time made up of the witness of Scripture, Councils, Liturgy, Patristics, hymns / icons, with the degree of emphasis in about that order, to make it simple.
If you don't believe in the Resurrection in its full theological and historical truth, you absolutely ain't Orthodox.
The Entrance of the Theotokos into the Temple is another matter. More than a few prominent Orthodox hold its "theological" truth but have grave reservations about its historical possibility. You can see by searching this board, the Orthodox here are split on the matter.
Certainly, there are things you "must" believe (just look at the Symbol of Faith) and there are other traditions which some understand in a variety of ways or don't believe in at all.
The best way to discern all this of course is to attend liturgy and read the Scriptures. Ask questions of your fellow Orthodox to get a gist of the degree of consensus on the matter you have questions about.
Recently for example, there was a poster who was arguing a literal interpretation of Christ's words regarding referring to no man as father
Did you notice the reaction? I don't think a single person on this board even began to give any credence to idea that was a legitimate POV.
The Entrance of the Theotokos into the Temple? Not so much consensus here.
If you don't know how to use google to see how "divisive" certain traditions are or how "literally" they are held in general by folks on this board, just do the following in google:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/ WHATEVER YOU WANT TO KNOW ABOUT
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/ "entrance of the theotokos"
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/ "call no man father"
The quotes will return only those results with that exact phrase contained within.
Best of luck.