Ah, but first we have to remember that my comment was directed to Alex. Not that I mind at all your weighing in, I welcome it, it's just that I don't think I would have said that to you. That's because I "think" that Orthodox and Catholics see the Holy Tradition differently, in a structural sense. Catholics have described authority to me in terms of a three-legged stool, with two of those legs being Tradition and scripture. I think that Orthodoxy sees authority more as a perfectly balanced "one-legged stool". :) I'm just trying to figure out how these ideas do and do not work together.
I've pinged you to another thread which, if you read the linked article, will give you some more insight into the Orthodox position on Holy Tradition.
Catholicism is generally more prone to legalistic compartmentalizations, such as drawing these boundaries between Tradition, Scripture and Magisterial teaching. Sometimes it works for the good, sometimes it opens more questions. Nevertheless, a sregards the relationship between the Scripture and Tradition, I do not think there is a different of substance between the West and the East.
That's a cute analogy, FK, and somewhat true. However, I would say that both particular Churches, within their respective and traditional mindests, understand Christian Canon to be a product of the Holy Tradition, and an integral and inseparable part of it.
Likewise, both particular Churches of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church hold that Scripture and Tradition are never in conflict with each other.