I think there are really only 3 infallible statements that have been made in an infallible way. Everything else is fallible, but must be treated as infallible by the laity.
Regarding the early church fathers, many believed in Subordinationism. Many of the same fathers who taught tradition taught subordinationism. The laity at the time were to treat this teaching as infallible. Around 350, subordinationaism was rejected, so the teaching that was to be treated as infallible was actually fallible and in error.
So my problem with tradition is that it's fallible, but we must treat it as infallible because someone who is fallible told us their teachings are infallible even though they know their teachings are fallible and accept the fact that a future fallible statement could affect the infallibility of their teachings. Like I said, it hurts my brain.
**that the laity must treat everything as infallible **
No, this is a misunderstanding. Only pronouncements by the Pope and the Magisterium on matters of faith and morals.
A pronouncement on starvation in the world or rainfall or how to dress to go to church would not fall in the faith and morals category — although they all come close.