FK: "(I was assuming that this document by James is considered infallible teaching.)"
Kolo: "I guess I never looked at it that way. Its part of Holy Tradition and tells us something about what people in the very, very early Church believed.
I thought we were talking about the whole document. So, if I have this right now, and please correct me if I'm wrong, :) if an entire document is declared infallible, then that is scripture. Holy Tradition and Apostolic Tradition and the singular "Tradition" are all really the same thing and may or may not be infallible. [Jo said: "I recently tried to describe what process the Church undergoes before it declares an Apostolic Tradition infallible."] But these do not refer to whole documents, rather, they refer more to ideas, concepts, or teachings that are written down, examined, and determined to be infallible or not. Is this right?
Just because something is acknowledged as Tradition doesn't make it infallible. It must be formally declared so by the Church. So, Jo when you said that Holy Tradition is one of the three legs of authority you didn't mean all Tradition. You meant only that Tradition that has been declared infallible? I feel like either I'm pretty close or 100 miles off. :)
From an Orthodox pov, I think you're off by about 50 miles! :)
Holy Tradition is what The Church always and everywhere believed. It is infallible not because anyone said so but becuase Christ assured us that the Holy Spirit would always be with The Church. Writings of the Fathers, or documents like the Protoevangalion of James in and of themselves are not "infallible", though they may contain expressions of infallible doctrine. With the writings of individual Fathers, and certainly with documents like the Protoevangelion, there can be theological error even heresy, as with Origen and Tertullian and some Orthodox would say with parts of Augustine (I don't mean to single these Fathers out; its something seen in many Fathers, especially when they start speculating on things). When it comes to the Fathers, what we look for is the "consensus patrum", the consensus of The Fathers. That consensus, as part of Holy Tradition, teaches us infallibly the Truth of our Faith. Holy Tradition is made up of many more things, however. The Divine Liturgies and other services and devotions of The Church are part of the Holy Tradition. The Mysteries, what the West calls the Sacraments, are part of Holy Tradition. Scripture is part of the Holy Tradition and is always interpreted according to Holy Tradition. All theological doctrine and practice is measured according to Holy Tradition and can be found to be "orthodox", "heterodox", theologoumenna or heresy.
Does that help?
Tradition has two meanings. First, Tradition is WHAT is delivered. It is a teaching. This is the meaning of Tradition found in Scriptures, when Paul tells the Thessalonians to hold onto the Apostles' teachings. Secondly, Tradition is the way and means by which the teaching is delivered. Again, back to 2 Thessalonians, Paul told them to hold onto written and unwritten teachings. Thus, immediately, we have two definitions of Tradition.
As I have said, when we speak of the unwritten word of God, so called oral tradition, we don't mean it was NEVER written down. (Even the liturgy and the sacraments are "written down", although in both cases, they are "acted" rather than read to the congregation.) Kolo is correct in that something does not necessarily have to be "declared" by the Church heirarchy as infallible before being thought of as such. However, Councils more CLEARLY DEFINE that something really is infallible tradition.
God's Revelation is given to us in three ways: 1. The Scripture, God's Word in writing by the inspiration of the Spirit. 2. Sacred Apostolic Tradition, God's Word entrusted to the Apostles by God that is NOT EXPLICITLY in Scriptures. It is living in that it is practiced, thus we also call Tradition "living". Sometimes, it takes the Church some self-examination to determine whether something is Divine or not. 3. The teaching office of the Church, the Magesterium. It is God's desire that men are able to interpret God's Revelation to us in Scriptures and Tradition. It is the responsibility of the Apostles' successors to present this for belief to God's People.
Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are from the same source, God. Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with His own "always, to the close of the age". (Dei Verbum, 9)
And finally, yes, there are Sacred Traditions, those that are meant for all people of all times within the Church, those that are considered Divinely given; and those that are Ecclesiastical Traditions, those that are meant for all people of a certain time or some people of a certain time. They are given by the Church to aid in the Christian's walk towards Christ. An example is making the sign of the cross on our forehead when entering the Church. Not divinely given through the Apostles.
Hope this helps. Got to go now, Confession time.
Brother in Christ