"In other words, the Chruch actually gives them the same status as what the Church has stated to be the "inspired" word. Is that correct?"
Well, it depends on the meaning of "inspired". What The Church seeks and finds in a manner necessarily limited by our human existence attempting to deal with He Who does not "exist" in the way we do, being as He is, the Source of existence, is Truth. The highest authority we have and the greatest tool we possess for finding Truth are the scriptures, which are inspired by God, but one must understand that the scriptures as we have them were determined to be useful for finding and understanding Truth because it is uniquely the position of The Church to make that determination. Similarly, it was and is for The Church to determine what is inspired and what isn't. The writings of the Fathers, to the extent they are within the consensus patrum and the declarations and dogmas of the councils accepted by The Church are useful for knowing the Truth and thus, indeed, are inspired by the Holy Spirit. In the hierarchy of tools of The Church to discover the Truth, the scriptures are the highest inspired source, but they are not the only inspired source.
And if memory serves me correctly, the Orthodox are not ashamed to admit they are willing to change teaching and doctrinal positions. Does that mean what was the infallible position of the Church, like bishops being the husbands of one wife as Paul stated, is no long an infallible teaching? Was Paul out of date? One has to wonder if it was good 300 years later why it isn't good now? It does make one question what the term "infallible" means?