This is the part that I'm struggling with. How is one to know what is or is not infallible Church teaching? How is one to know what is or is not infallible Church Tradition? You said that Tradition is what is delivered, and is the manner of delivery. I'm trying to figure out where you all hang your hats. :)
For example, if I said to my friend Jack Bauer, "Jack, the Catholics and Orthodox believe that the Protoevangelion is part of their Holy Tradition, take a look." Then, if he read it he might very well think that you all believe every word of it. I have been told that this is not the case, although it does contain elements of truth that you do believe in. I feel I would be misrepresenting you if I said that you all fully believe in all Holy Tradition. I don't want to misrepresent you, which is why I keep harping on this. :) If you show me something and say that it is Tradition, I just want to know whether I can safely assume that you believe in it fully, partially, or to what degree.
I have been assuming through this whole thing that you think that all real truth is infallible, just from a common sense standpoint. Am I missing something there?
God's Revelation is given to us in three ways: ... 2. Sacred Apostolic Tradition, God's Word entrusted to the Apostles by God that is NOT EXPLICITLY in Scriptures.
OK, this I didn't know, or didn't remember. So, to be one of the three legs of authority, any Tradition must have come directly from one of the Apostles. Good enough.
The selling of indulgence was once an "infallible" Church teaching. After two hundred years it was condemned. One has to wonder how a infallible teaching could go bad.
This is why I suggested that Apostolic Tradition is NOT superior to Scripture - it is not so clear sometimes, although once we identify it, it is equal to Scripture, both coming from God. We (people of today) have to ascertain what the Church has thought about an issue. Rarely is something unanimous. So when the Church explores an issue (say, infant baptism), there is much to consider - unlike Scripture, which is generally more accessible. More study is involved in making this determination of the Spirit's guidance of the Church. Those who disagree with the idea are re-examined more closely. The sacred Liturgy is studied. What has been the common practice? This is a process that takes awhile. This is why I suggested that we can know Apostolic Tradition more CLEARLY through Councils - when the Church defines infant baptism as an infallible teaching.
However, BEFORE the Church actually defined this, the Church taught it "informally" and later "formally", if you will - "everywhere, by everyone in all times". This is called the "sense of the faithful". The Holy Spirit moves the Church as a whole and organic organization through her individuals. But since man does not clearly interpret the Spirit's movements individually, the Church relys on the "general consensus" over time to figure out what the Spirit is teaching the Church as a whole. It is defined at Councils so that EVERYONE can know. Questions about whether something is infallible are no longer made.
Let me see if I can describe the process...
The Apostles taught infant baptism to Christians. In the letters that they address to Corinth or Ephesus, they never mention this. However, it becomes a generally accepted practice, taken for granted, sort of like when Catholics do the sign of the cross. We just do it, perhaps not knowing its origin. A hundred years after the Apostles died, the Church throughout is continuing this practice, even though it is not mentioned specifically in the writings that are becoming accepted as Scriptures. However, some men ARE writing about it. Tertullian, 200 AD, writes that it is an "ancient practice". So does Origen (250 AD). Why do they even write about it? There are some people who question the idea of WAITING 8 days (like circumcision). They want to baptise SOONER!
Thus, Christian writers 100 years after the last apostle died are considering the "ancient" tradition from the Apostles and whether it was acceptable or necessary to even wait 8 days...Cyprian writes in 250 AD that it wasn't necessary (he was a bishop) to wait, and it appears that the Church had followed this idea and taught it to this day. I am not sure at what point the Church officially, in a Council, declared infant baptism as an infallible teaching. I believe it wasn't until some disagreed with the idea that the Church found it necessary to say "yes, infant baptism is allowed". I believe the Council of Trent solemnly declared it. However, the Church's unanimous practice of it BEFORE the declaration is a sign to us that the SPIRIT OF TRUTH was leading the Church to this practice - "everywhere, in every time, by everyone". Thus, the Consensus that Kolo talked about. The Council makes it irrefutably clear, but it was a teaching of the Church before that - recall that the Church has the power to bind and loosen the faith and the content of that faith.
Regards