This is where I get confused on what "tradition" is. :) I'm not positive of the difference it makes if you capitalize "tradition"?
You don't know your Old Testament very well if you aren't familiar with the strictness with which the Jewish tradition considered "the cycle" to be a time when a woman was ritually unclean.
I knew they were considered unclean, as well as in the case of right after childbirth. I just didn't know that it was so strict that a woman can't even live in a temple if she EVER is that way. I guessed that maybe at worst, they might have to go live in a tent or something during that time. But if dem was the rules, then dem was the rules. :)
Allow me to rephrase the paragraph you quoted:
"...do not assume that every part of the Protoevangelion is true. Written extra-Biblical accounts are not Scripture, nor can they be considered to be an innerant conveyor of Holy Tradition in the way that the Scriptures are . In the case of traditions like our beliefs about the conception, birth, early life, ever-virginity, and falling-asleep of the Theotokos, we feel very confident in the basic accounts, but we don't read into small details of the Church's accounts of these traditions with the confidence that we can with Scripture...."
Hope that helps.
I am jumping in on this as it caught my eye. The Orthodox Church in 17th century Russia used to ex-communicate for years child-bearing age women who would be seen in church on four consecutive Sundays, one of which would have to be during their menstrual cycle.
The Orthodox Church to this day stipulates that a woman is not to come to church untl 40 days after the childbirth, which is the reason why so many Orthodox baptize their children at that time.