I believe there should be a better term than "Sola Scriptura" it's very easily misinterpreted.What the author @infowarrior1 linked to refers to as sola scriptura appears to be in line with Orthodox teaching. What he dismisses as a caricature of sola scriptura, the guy screaming about how he doesn't need nothing else but the Bible, is exactly what Orthodox are arguing against when we argue against sola scriptura. This is probably because in the US, a huge portion of Orthodox are converts from exactly that sort of Christianity.
What he calls sola scriptura, on the other hand, appears Orthodox. Our source of dogma is divine revelation, as recorded in the scriptures. And because the scriptures are really God's word, we must maintain the original understanding, rather than make up new ones. At least, I think this is what the author was getting at.
Oddly enough, it was the RC theologian St. Thomas Aquinas who coined the term sola scriptura when he wrote that "sola canonica Scriptura est regula fidei." Canonical scripture alone is the rule of faith. We look to the Fathers, not as a source of additional divine revelation, but for the proper explanation of what had already been written in the scripture.
Fr. George Florovsky's article "On Church and Tradition" is the most helpful thing I have read on the subject, and should probably be required reading for anyone involved in Orthodox/Protestant apologetics.
Terminology like this becomes a huge issue in discussions of theology, because different people mean different things by the same words. The people I personally know who say they believe in sola scriptura claim that you could give the Bible to an ignorant savage, and he would figure out the complete Christian faith, on his first read. And that's what I assumed everyone meant by the term until pretty recently.