What is 'handed on' from generation togeneration? --

Everything that contributes to theholinessof life and increase of faith of the People of God; and so theChurch,in her teaching, life, and worship, perpetuates and hands on to allgenerationsall that she herself is, all that she believes.
(On this view, the Scripture is, in a sense, a part of theTradition-- an especially important part, but a part nonetheless.)
The tradition is living and growing, not static. Thetraditionwhich comes (to us) from the apostles develops in the Church with thehelpof the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding ofthewords and other parts of the tradition that have been handed down.
'Handing on' of the faith is NOT 'here is the telephone book: readit, study it, master it, and be ready to repeat it back to me. No,rather,I have to live now and respond to the needs of my own ageand times. That doesn't mean that I don't depend on the witness totruthof those who came before me. But I may not have the exact samechallenges they did. And quite frankly, I can learn from whattheysaid and did, and perhaps we as a people can do a bit better than thepeoplein the past. At least we won't make the exact samemistakes. We will make our own mistakes. But that makes it easier toseethe mistakes of the past and learn from them. We can, as thesayinggoes, 'stand on the shoulders of giants' and thus see even further thantheydid, although we can only do so because of the important work they didbeforeus.
The need for an authentic interpreter of God's word, whetherinScripture or Tradition. Why?
- Otherwise, how would we know what we believe? (Jesussaidthis. No, He didn't! This is a Gospel. No, it isn't!)
- How would we separate the wheat from the chaff? (Christiansshouldhate Jews. No, they shouldn't! All people must becomeJewsbefore they become Christians. No, they don't!)
- Scriptures: The books do not interpret themselves. IsJesus proclaiming Himself God or not? And what does that mean?Godin what sense?
- Tradition: Just because we used to do it, doesthatmean we have to do it now? Are there better and worse'traditions'?Are there 'traditions' which may have outlived their usefulness? (Itwas a tradition for men to wear coats and ties, or for women to covertheirheads -- when culturally this was a sign of respect. Do we needtodo this now? Would it still be a sign of respect in the same way? Asopposed to: it has been a tradition to use wine and bread for thebodyand blood of Christ. Do we need to do this now? It has beenatradition (based on statements in the Scriptures) that the death andresurrectionof Christ have brought about the salvation of all mankind. Do westillneed to accept this? Some people used to think that if youweren't explicitly a Catholic or a Christian, you weredefinitely goingto hell? Do we still need to say that? Or might it bepossibleto have a broader and more profound understanding of the universalityofChrist's sacrifice? In all these cases, and many more, itseemswe need an authentic and authoritative intepreter of God's word,whetherin Scripture or Tradition.
What do we call this authentic and authoritative interpreter of God'sword,whether in Scripture or Tradition?:
Magisterium (the teaching authority of the Church)
The Three Legs That Support the Church (so linked and joined togetherthatone cannot stand without the others; all together and each in itsownway, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, contribute effectively tothesalvation of souls).
- Scripture
- Tradition
- Magisterium (authentic and authoritative interpreter; but'this teaching office is not above the word of God' -- whether embodiedinScripture or Tradition -- 'but serves it, teaching only what has beenhandedon, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously, and explainingitfaithfully by divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit)
Levels of Magisterium:
- Ordinary (every day) vs. Extra-Ordinary (not very frequently)
- Infallible Dogma vs. Non-Infallible, Yet Authoritative Teachings
- Note from the diagram the different ways in which the two types ofteachingcan come about.
What is an infallible teaching?
It can be taken as axiomatic in the Catholic view ofthefaith that where the Church's magisterium has once unambiguouslyrequiredat any time an absolute, ultimate and unconditional assent of faith toadefinite doctrine as revealed by God, the doctrine in question is nolongersubject to revision and is irrevocable.
This is so even if previously, in earlier times, ithadnot been taught with the same absolute requirement of belief. Itmayeven have been controverted, though this does not of course mean thatthechurch ever taught the contrary as absolutely binding. Such adogmaof the Church is truly unchangeable, i.e., it can never cease, even byanact of the Church, to be binding on the conscience of the Catholic.
What is owed to infallible teachings of the Church?
The submission of faith
Can there be development in dogma and in the teachings of the Church?
Yes. The immutability of the Church's defineddogmasdoes not exclude, on the contrary it implies, that there is a historyofdogmas. Such a history comes about in either of two ways.

1. First, because in some cases, a great deal of time andtheologicaldevelopment and clarification may have been needed before the Church'sawarenessof its belief had finally fought its way to a clear realization thatsuchand such a definite doctrine of the Church is (a) really contained indivinerevelation, and/or (b) is a genuine expression of what has always been'globally'or 'universally' believed, or (c) is a necessary defense againsthereticalmisinterpretation of what has been handed down.
   So, for example, it was after many years of discussion and argument,andin particular, it was as a response to the challenges of the Arians,thatthe Church finally came together at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD todefinethat the Son is 'one is Being' with the Father.
   Or, to cite another example: The Church from the beginning had Paul'sinjunctionsin 1 Corinthians 7:23 that 'You were bought with a price; do not becomeslavesof men'; in1 Corinthians 12:13 that 'For by one Spirit we were allbaptizedinto one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and wewereall made to drink of one Spirit'; in Galatians 3:28 that, in theKingdomof God, 'there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave norfreeman, there is neither male nor female; for all are one in ChristJesus';and the text in Colossians 3:11, claiming that Christ had brought about'arenewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew,circumcisedand uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christisall, and in all.' And yet, because there were also texts whichbidslaves to obey their masters, such as in Colossians 3:22: 'Slaves, inallthings obey those who are your masters on earth, not with externalservice,as those who merely please men, but with sincerity of heart, fearingtheLord,' it wasn't until centuries after Paul, that the Church finallyrealizedthat the actual practice of slavery should be condemned, utterly andtotally.
   
2. Second, there can be a legitimate history of dogma evenwherea dogma is already unmistakably present and expressed. For eventhemeaning of a dogma of this kind can be thought out still further, moreprofoundlyclarified; freed from misunderstandings which spontaneously accompanyitand which earlier times cannot have been conscious of; or brought intomoreexplicit connection with other truths of the faith.
   For example, once the Church had laid it down definitively andirreformablythat the Son is 'one in Being' with the Father, that did not stop laterthinkersfrom realizing the Holy Spirit too was 'one in Being' with the Fatherandthe Son; or that the Son incarnate was both fully God and fully man,oneperson with two full and complete natures.
   

Why do we need a non-infallible, yet authoritative, teaching?
There exists, and must exist, a teaching of theChurchwhich possesses an importance and binding force for the faith and moralconscienceof the individual Catholic, although in what it directly states itcannotand does not intend to make any claim to the absolute assent of faith,andalthough it is not irreformable (in other words, it can be reformed,corrected,reversed), it is still involved in the elucidatory development of theChurch'sconsciousness of its belief.
Even what in itself is mutable can be binding on usifin the Church's judgment it is here and now the safest, what presentstheleast danger of coming into conflict with the unchanging spirit of theGospel. Conversely, what is now really binding need not necessarily on thataccountbe absolutely immutable and definitive. A mother, for example,whohas to support her children and is faced with an operation which in theconsideredopinion of all the specialists is necessary, has the absolute moraldutyof permitting the operation although she knows that the doctors'judgmentmay be wrong and is subject to revision, and is therefore not itselfunconditionallytrue or right.
The Christian must normally adopt an analogousattitudein theory and practice in regard to teachings and moral precepts of theChurchwhich are put forward authoritatively by the Church, even if not asirrevocabledogma.
What is owed to authoritative teachings of the Church, whichare not infallible?
A religious submission assent of soul. Thisreligious submission of will and of mind must be shown to the authenticteachingauthority of the Pope, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra(andthus, not intending to teach infallibly, which by the way, is not whathedoes most of the time). That is, this religious submission ofmindand will must be shown in such a way that
(a) his teaching authority is acknowledged with reverence, and
(b) the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according tohismanifest mind and will.
In other words, your mind and will should be matched up with his mindandwill on the matter. In this regard, two extremes shouldundoubtedlybe avoided:
(a) Saying, 'This guy is an idiot, and I don't have to listen to whathesays' (which is not exactly acknowledging his teaching authority withanykind of reverence); and
(b) Nor should one try to be 'more popish than the Pope.' If thePopehas not definitively condemned the proposition or excommunicated thoseannoyingindividuals over there, neither should you. You should try torecognize,with some subtlety and respect, the 'manifest mind and will' of theteacher.
How do we know the 'manifest mind and will' of the teacher?
His manifest mind and will in the matter may beknownchiefly either:
(a) from the character of the documents [Constitutions, Declarations,Decrees;Encyclicals, Pastoral Letters, Sermons, Comments],
(b) from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, [his repetitionandits repetition in the Tradition], or
(c) from his manner of speaking ['I do proclaim and declare, in myofficeas Pope, as successor to Peter, that such and such is to be held astrue'].
Can there be disagreement with such teachings (authoritative,yetnot infallible)?
Yes, in some cases, for some people. In short,it depends on a number of things, all of which are important toconsider. First, in each case, we must be careful to pay attention to the'manifestmind and will' of the teacher, as mentioned above. Second, wemustbe careful to consider some things about ourselves.
How are advances made in the Church's knowledge andunderstanding?
According to the Second Vatican Council, 'growth intheunderstanding of the realities and the words which have been handeddown'happens, in the first place, through 'the contemplation and study madebybelievers, who treasure these things in their hearts,' and 'through theintimateunderstanding of spiritual things they experience.' Secondly, theCouncilmentions 'the preaching of those who have received through episcopalsuccessionthe sure gift of truth.' Both are important.
The case is conceivable, as Karl Rahner explains,thatsomeone, while:
(a) exercising due self-critical caution about his own possibleshort-sightednessand the opacity of his own judgments, may,
(b) after thorough evaluation of the grounds for the attitude of theChurch'smagisterium at the moment, and
(c) after serious prayer and examination of his conscience before God[haveyou really 'treasured these things in your heart,'
and do you really have an intimate understanding of thespiritualthings being discussed?] and in view of his eventual responsibilitybeforethe judgment-seat of the incorruptible God (both for His own salvationandso as not to harm any of the 'little ones,' since Christ says veryclearly(Mt 18:6; Mk 9:42; Lk 17:2) that: 'whoever causes any one of these little ones who believes in Me tostumble,it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung aroundhis neck, and to be thrown into the sea')
– it is conceivable that such a person may come totheconclusion that in this or that individual case, a doctrine of theChurchwhich has not been defined as a dogma and is therefore in itself areformabledoctrine of the Church, is in fact, in certain details, in need ofreform.
What are the norms of 'licit' or appropriate theologicaldissent?
According to the U.S. bishops (Human Life in OurDay, 1968), it requires:
1. Careful respect for the consciences of those who lack the person'sspecialcompetence or opportunity for judicious investigation.
2. That one set forth the dissent with propriety and with regard forthegravity of the matter and the deference due the authority which haspronouncedon it.
3. Prudence and a confident faith that, in the end, the truth willprevail.
4. A presumption in favor of the magisterium.
The expression of theological dissent is in order only if:
(a) the reasons are serious and well-founded,
(b) if the manner of dissent does not question or impugn the teachingauthorityof the Church and
(c) is such as not to give scandal.
Responsible dissent also carries with it the responsibility of afaithfulpresentation of the authentic teaching of the Church when one isperforminga pastoral ministry in the Church's name.