What annalex is saying, I think, is that just as the Scriptures were not written in a vacuum, they were never interpreted in a vacuum.
The Apostles knew the fullness of the context and understanding in which the NT was written, and they passed that understanding to their followers.
While it is much more that this, Holy Tradition at the very least is the context in which the Scriptures were and are interpreted and understood.
It would never occur to devout Catholics or Orthodox to question things like the Virgin Birth of Christ or the bodily Resurrection of Christ. This is because our tradition is unequivocal on these points -- we know that there is no other way for the Scriptures to be interpreted, not if we want to call ourselves Catholics or Orthodox Christians.
Which, incidentally, is the key to your circuitous dispute with Kosta about inerrancy of the scripture. The scripture uses verbal images to convey elements of the Holy Tradition. It is in the nature of verbal communication that idiomatics get in the way, and imperfection of human memory gets in the way. When Christ speaks of mustard seed and mustard tree, the Tradition is very clear: it is an idiomatic expression of the essence of faith, and not a botany lesson. Likewise, when the family composition of a biblical patriarch is mentioned, the Tradition does not stumble over what most likely is a human error of recollection. But when you divorce the Scripture from Tradition, the imperfections of the verbal form of expression become noticeable. It is not unlike the Russian peasants replacing priceless ancient icons in their possession with modern kitsch because the old ones were pockmarked and the paint peeled off here and there. If he valued the icon because it is from Granddad, he would love it for the pockmarks all the more. When the Granddad is forgotten, the icon is viewed as painting and personal preference for brighter colors and realistic shading takes over.
Modernity: Gallileo, medical science, zoological taxonomies, the sola scriptura superstition, are all the wrong light in which the scripture should not be viewed. "Mustard is the tallest tree" is an inerrant statement in its context and in the light of the Tradition. Pasted into a botany book is it erroneous. So? You cannot study anatomy from iconographers either.
Yes, and as I say, in effect, to Alex in my 4333, I don't think I worded that post very well. :)
It would never occur to devout Catholics or Orthodox to question things like the Virgin Birth of Christ or the bodily Resurrection of Christ. This is because our tradition is unequivocal on these points -- we know that there is no other way for the Scriptures to be interpreted, not if we want to call ourselves Catholics or Orthodox Christians. (emphasis added)
This is a very key point for me. Is the greater reason you believe in the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection because Tradition says so, or is it because the Bible says so? You believed in both, (both) before and after your conversion, so you have a unique perspective.