If you are referring to the Protoevangelion of James that contains some of the stories of the early life of the Theotokos, etc, these are most emphatically *not* infallible writings.
These writings, I am pretty sure, came out of heretical sects.
It is not so much that the Orthodox get these traditions from these documents as it is that this is the oldest *written* documentation of this *oral* tradition.
A common tactic by heretical writers was to do two things: first, to put an apostle's name on their writings; and secondly, to set down in writing stories from oral Christian tradition that everyone agreed were true.
They then slipped in their false teachings around these true stories. I think that the Protoevangelion is Gnostic of some sort. There are certainly parts of it that are pretty wacky, as I recall. We Orthodox take as our authority our own Synaxarion writings and the texts of our liturgical services, which reflect the Orthodox oral tradition of these matters.
The fact that heretics made use of the story is no more evidence that it isn't true than is the fact that Mormons came up with their own stories of Christ means that the Biblical stories about Christ that they also teach aren't true.
In the writings of heretics of the early centuries, the most reliable things are generally the substrate of the actual story, life of a saint, or tradition they are telling. They would stick closely to the facts that Christians believed, so they could trick them into accepting their false teachings.
These writings, I am pretty sure, came out of heretical sects.
Yes, that's the one I'm referring to. And to be fair, I don't think the person who showed it to me claimed it was infallible, I think I just assumed, so that's on me. :) Thank you for setting me straight.
They [heretics] then slipped in their false teachings around these true stories. I think that the Protoevangelion is Gnostic of some sort. There are certainly parts of it that are pretty wacky, as I recall.
Therefore, it would be completely unfair of me, as an outsider, to say that Catholics believe in such and such based on the Protoevangelion because I can't possibly know what part is heretical.
The fact that heretics made use of the story is no more evidence that it isn't true than is the fact that Mormons came up with their own stories of Christ means that the Biblical stories about Christ that they also teach aren't true.
Point well taken, thanks.