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?
Yes, that helps. Thanks. So, Holy Tradition includes both oral and written teachings. The oral part goes pretty much all the way back to the beginning and the written works of the Fathers are subject to the "consensus patrum". Am I getting closer? :) I think I'm still a little fuzzy one something. At the beginning you said that Holy Tradition goes all the way back ("always believed"), but later the consensus is considered part of the Tradition?