What is "handed on" from generation to generation? -- 

Everything that contributes to the holiness of life and increase of faith of the People of God;  and so the Church, in her teaching, life, and worship, perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is,  all that she believes.
(On this view, the Scripture is, in a sense, a part of the Tradition -- an especially important part, but a part nonetheless.)

The tradition is living and growing, not static. The tradition which comes (to us) from the apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit.  For there is a growth in the understanding of the words and other parts of the tradition that have been handed down.
"Handing on" of the faith is NOT "here is the telephone book:  read it, 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 age and times .  That doesn't mean that I don't depend on the witness to truth of those who came before me.  But I may not have the exact same challenges they did.  And quite frankly, I can learn from what they said and did, and perhaps we as a people can do a bit better than the people in the past.  At least we won't make the exact same mistakes.  We will make our own mistakes.  But that makes it easier to see the mistakes of the past and learn from them.  We can, as the saying goes, "stand on the shoulders of giants" and thus see even further than they did, although we can only do so because of the important work they did before us.

The need for an authentic interpreter of God's word, whether in Scripture or Tradition.  Why?
- Otherwise, how would we know what we believe?  (Jesus said this.  No, He didn't!  This is a Gospel.  No, it isn't!)
- How would we separate the wheat from the chaff?  (Christians should hate Jews.  No, they shouldn't!  All people must  become Jews before they become Christians.  No, they don't!)
- Scriptures:  The books do not interpret themselves.  Is Jesus proclaiming Himself God or not?  And what does that mean? God in what sense?
- Tradition:  Just because we used to do it, does that mean we have to do it now?  Are there better and worse "traditions"? Are there "traditions" which may have outlived their usefulness?  (It was a tradition for men to wear coats and ties, or for women to cover their heads -- when culturally this was a sign of respect.  Do we need to do this now?  Would it still be a sign of respect in the same way?  As opposed to:  it has been a tradition to use wine and bread for the body and blood of Christ.  Do we need to do this now?  It has been a tradition (based on statements in the Scriptures) that the death and resurrection of Christ have brought about the salvation of all mankind.  Do we still need to accept this?  Some people used to think that if you weren't explicitly a Catholic or a Christian, you were definitely going to hell?  Do we still need to say that?  Or might it be possible to have a broader and more profound understanding of the universality of Christ's sacrifice?  In all these cases, and many more, it seems we need an authentic and authoritative intepreter of God's word, whether in Scripture or Tradition.

What do we call this authentic and authoritative interpreter of God's word, whether in Scripture or Tradition?:
Magisterium (the teaching authority of the Church)

The Three Legs That Support the Church (so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others;  all together and each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, contribute effectively to the salvation of souls).
- Scripture
- Tradition
- Magisterium (authentic and authoritative interpreter;  but "this teaching office is not above the word of God" -- whether embodied in Scripture or Tradition -- "but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously, and explaining it faithfully 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 of teaching can come about.  

What is an infallible teaching?
    It can be taken as axiomatic in the Catholic view of the faith that where the Church's magisterium has once unambiguously required at any time an absolute, ultimate and unconditional assent of faith to a definite doctrine as revealed by God, the doctrine in question is no longer subject to revision and is irrevocable.

    This is so even if previously, in earlier times, it had not been taught with the same absolute requirement of belief.  It may even have been controverted, though this does not of course mean that the church ever taught the contrary as absolutely binding.  Such a dogma of the Church is truly unchangeable, i.e., it can never cease, even by an act 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 defined dogmas does not exclude, on the contrary it implies, that there is a history of dogmas.  Such a history comes about in either of two ways. 

1. First, because in some cases, a great deal of time and theological development and clarification may have been needed before the Church's awareness of its belief had finally fought its way to a clear realization that such and such a definite doctrine of the Church is (a) really contained in divine revelation, and/or (b) is a genuine expression of what has always been "globally" or "universally" believed, or (c) is a necessary defense against heretical misinterpretation of what has been handed down. 
   
   So, for example, it was after many years of discussion and argument, and in particular, it was as a response to the challenges of the Arians, that the Church finally came together at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD to define that the Son is "one is Being" with the Father. 
   
   Or, to cite another example: The Church from the beginning had Paul's injunctions in 1 Corinthians 7:23 that "You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men"; in1 Corinthians 12:13 that "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit"; in Galatians 3:28 that, in the Kingdom of God, "there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for all are one in Christ Jesus"; and the text in Colossians 3:11, claiming that Christ had brought about "a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all."  And yet, because there were also texts which bid slaves to obey their masters, such as in Colossians 3:22: "Slaves, in all things obey those who are your masters on earth, not with external service, as those who merely please men, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord," it wasn't until centuries after Paul, that the Church finally realized that the actual practice of slavery should be condemned, utterly and totally.
   
   
2. Second, there can be a legitimate history of dogma even where a dogma is already unmistakably present and expressed.  For even the meaning of a dogma of this kind can be thought out still further, more profoundly clarified; freed from misunderstandings which spontaneously accompany it and which earlier times cannot have been conscious of; or brought into more explicit connection with other truths of the faith. 
   
   For example, once the Church had laid it down definitively and irreformably that the Son is "one in Being" with the Father, that did not stop later thinkers from realizing the Holy Spirit too was "one in Being" with the Father and the Son; or that the Son incarnate was both fully God and fully man, one person with two full and complete natures.
    

Why do we need a non-infallible, yet authoritative, teaching?
    There exists, and must exist, a teaching of the Church which possesses an importance and binding force for the faith and moral conscience of the individual Catholic, although in what it directly states it cannot and does not intend to make any claim to the absolute assent of faith, and although it is not irreformable (in other words, it can be reformed, corrected, reversed), it is still involved in the elucidatory development of the Church's consciousness of its belief.

    Even what in itself is mutable can be binding on us if in the Church's judgment it is here and now the safest, what presents the least danger of coming into conflict with the unchanging spirit of the Gospel.  Conversely, what is now really binding need not necessarily on that account be absolutely immutable and definitive.  A mother, for example, who has to support her children and is faced with an operation which in the considered opinion of all the specialists is necessary, has the absolute moral duty of permitting the operation although she knows that the doctors' judgment may be wrong and is subject to revision, and is therefore not itself unconditionally true or right.

    The Christian must normally adopt an analogous attitude in theory and practice in regard to teachings and moral precepts of the Church which are put forward authoritatively by the Church, even if not as irrevocable dogma. 

What is owed to authoritative teachings of the Church, which are not infallible?  
    A religious submission assent of soul.  This religious submission of will and of mind must be shown to the authentic teaching authority of the Pope, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra (and thus, not intending to teach infallibly, which by the way, is not what he does most of the time).  That is, this religious submission of mind and 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 to his manifest mind and will.
In other words, your mind and will should be matched up with his mind and will on the matter.  In this regard, two extremes should undoubtedly be avoided:
(a) Saying, "This guy is an idiot, and I don't have to listen to what he says" (which is not exactly acknowledging his teaching authority with any kind of reverence);  and
(b) Nor should one try to be "more popish than the Pope."  If the Pope has not definitively condemned the proposition or excommunicated those annoying individuals over there, neither should you.  You should try to recognize, with some subtlety and respect, the "manifest mind and will" of the teacher.

How do we know the "manifest mind and will" of the teacher?
    His manifest mind and will in the matter may be known chiefly 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 repetition and its repetition in the Tradition], or
(c) from his manner of speaking ["I do proclaim and declare, in my office as Pope, as successor to Peter, that such and such is to be held as true"].

Can there be disagreement with such teachings (authoritative, yet not infallible)? 
    Yes, in some cases, for some people.  In short, it depends on a number of things, all of which are important to consider.  First, in each case, we must be careful to pay attention to the "manifest mind and will" of the teacher, as mentioned above.  Second, we must be careful to consider some things about ourselves.
 
How are advances made in the Church's knowledge and understanding?  
    According to the Second Vatican Council, "growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down" happens, in the first place, through "the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts," and "through the intimate understanding of spiritual things they experience."  Secondly, the Council mentions "the preaching of those who have received through episcopal succession the sure gift of truth."  Both are important.

    The case is conceivable, as Karl Rahner explains, that someone, while:
(a) exercising due self-critical caution about his own possible short-sightedness and the opacity of his own judgments, may,
(b) after thorough evaluation of the grounds for the attitude of the Church's magisterium at the moment, and
(c) after serious prayer and examination of his conscience before God [have you really "treasured these things in your heart,"
and do you really have an intimate understanding of the spiritual things being discussed?] and in view of his eventual responsibility before the judgment-seat of the incorruptible God (both for His own salvation and so as not to harm any of the "little ones," since Christ says very clearly (Mt 18:6; Mk 9:42; Lk 17:2) that:   "whoever causes any one of these little ones who believes in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck , and to be thrown into the sea")
    – it is conceivable that such a person may come to the conclusion that in this or that individual case, a doctrine of the Church which has not been defined as a dogma and is therefore in itself a reformable doctrine of the Church, is in fact, in certain details, in need of reform.

What are the norms of "licit" or appropriate theological dissent?
    According to the U.S. bishops (Human Life in Our Day , 1968), it requires:

1. Careful respect for the consciences of those who lack the person's special competence or opportunity for judicious investigation.
2. That one set forth the dissent with propriety and with regard for the gravity of the matter and the deference due the authority which has pronounced on it.
3. Prudence and a confident faith that, in the end, the truth will prevail.
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 teaching authority of the Church and
(c) is such as not to give scandal.
Responsible dissent also carries with it the responsibility of a faithful presentation of the authentic teaching of the Church when one is performing a pastoral ministry in the Church's name.