To be honest, I think it’s pretty hard to find Catholics who are unswervingly “loyal to the magisterium in all things”. Some of the Catholics who consider themselves most “orthodox” are also the ones questioning or rejecting various Church teachings and guidance, especially post-Vatican II. They always have some reasoning for why their way of thinking is somehow more “orthodox” than what their bishop or the Vatican is doing or saying…
I agree that “faithful Catholics” is a better term, and I would define that roughly as believing everything in the Profession of Faith, making a consistent and reasonable effort to avoid grave sin as defined by the Church, and also making a concerted effort to observe the precepts of the Church. A faithful Catholic is still likely to have some doubts or disagree with the Church on something from time to time, even if it’s not anything big or controversial like abortion or gay marriage.
When I say “loyal to the magisterium in all things”, I mean first of all, accepting the teachings of the Church and resolving to make them one’s own, in spite of personal doubts or difficulties. In other words, I don’t “egg on” those doubts or difficulties, I merely face them head-on and say “even though I may not understand why, I will resolve to believe and think that somehow, the Church is right and I am wrong”. Perhaps the one that “jumps out at me” is that I have a very hard time understanding how someone can confect a valid,
sacramental marriage if they believe that sacramental marriage, in the abstract at least, can be dissolved. It seems to me, then, that they cannot and do not “do what the Church does” (
facere quod facit ecclesia). But the Church says otherwise, and I go with it. Another might be Bernard Nathanson’s objection to “abortion to save the life of the mother” by using the analogy of being drowning at sea while tethered to a madman who is thrashing and threatens to drown both of you, while you could cut the madman free, let him drown, and save yourself. It makes sense, but if the Church teaches otherwise, then I follow Loyola’s "the Church’s ‘white’ versus my ‘black’ ".
Certain teachings of Vatican II are difficult to understand according to the
analogia fidei, especially when one accepts the prior traditional teachings (rather than putting them down the “memory hole” because they’re inconvenient or disliked), and quite frankly, a traditional Catholic sometimes has to jump through mental and intellectual hoops to do it. Yet making the effort is the duty of a “faithful” or “orthodox” Catholic.
I do have my concerns that “orthodox” (small letter “o”) can be used as a way of describing just one “way to do the Catholic thing” among many, rather than the only thing a true Catholic can be, as opposed to being a “heterodox” Catholic, which is just another way of saying “cafeteria Catholic” or even “heretic”.
