(continued)
I don’t think you understand what certain terms like “orthodox” mean. “Orthodox”, for instance, is a description of someone who is faithful to the Magisterium. It relates specifically to whether or not a person is in accord with the Church.
I’m with you so far, insofar as we are using “in accord” as a measure of intellectual assent. Here, I mean to exclude “having greater faith” and the like from the measurement. Simply, on a checklist, we agree with Church teaching on everything, even in advance of knowing what it is. That is faith in the Church teachings, but I have talked myself into a bit of a corner here. Dare I ask, is intellectual assent to the Church the equivalent of faith in God?
It can be objectively measured: do you follow Church teaching in matters of faith and morals? Yes? Then you’re orthodox. No? Then you’re heterodox.
You have used an unfortunately absolute contruct here, resulting in all of us being heterodox unless one of us follows every Church teaching perfectly. Since we are all sinners, then join the club! Now we don’t have to fight because we are on the same side.
Just kidding. Perhaps I can offer a compromise wording:
It can be objectively measured: do you profess to agree intellectually with all Church teachings on faith and morals? If yes, then orthodox, if no, then heterodox (or worse.)
It isn’t a statement of “spiritual health”—an orthodox Catholic may have many, many struggles and at times be “spiritually sick”. Is an orthodox Catholic “more” Catholic than a heterodox Catholic? Well, in one sense, yes—here’s an analogy: if I subscribe to most of the Republican party’s platform and vote consistently for Republicans, I’m more of a Republican than someone who disagrees with most of the Republican platform and votes consistently for Democrats—even if that person says that they are a Republican. Why is that so difficult to accept? Don’t actions—not just words—mean something? It seems logical to me that to be “more” Catholic means to conform one’s life to the Catholic faith more and more.
I think I can see your analogy. My wife has had personal experience with this, having once flown to D.C. with the Eagle Forum “flying eagles” to lobby for pro-life and other conservative causes. When she talked to the aide of Senator Nancy Kassebaum, or liberal Republican senator at the time, she said her group would appreciate if Ms. Kassebaum would adhere closer to the party platform. The aide said the Ms. Kassebaum was an independent thinker, and voted on the merits of each issue. My wife followed up with, “then if you are independent, perhaps you should run as one since you do not represent the party.” The next answer was the most honest answer I’d heard in a long time; the aide said, “she runs as Republican because that’s what you have to be in this state to get elected.”
This gives me a glimpse as to what a “heterodox” might look like to a “orthodox” Catholic. Never fear though, as soon as I saw the problem just now I also received a consolation. The U.S. government is protected by its people electing its leaders based on popular vote. A candidate who misrepresents her views either by party affiliation or outright lies, threatens the integrity of the system, and could and very possibly will bring about the collapse of our system of government.
In the Church, we have the protection that the gates of hell will never prevail against her. It is not dangerous for a rank-and-file member to have heretical beliefs, because the Church will never adopt it as infallible truth. We don’t have to protect the Church from heretics. God will take care of that, as long as we continue to do our part which is not to judge. True faith in the Church would go beyond intellectual assent to the peace that the Church will never collapse, and other sinners inside and outside of the Church will not change that by anything they do or say. Unity comes from accepting each other first as dignified human beings, no better or worse than ourselves.
The other reason that “intellectual assent” doesn’t translate automatically into “more Catholic” is that there is more to being Catholic than that. Who is more Catholic, the good Samaritan, or the orthodox Catholic who walks on the other side of the path, or cajoles the injured man to get up without actually stooping down and getting dirty by touching him.
The disciples had the problem of trying to figure out which one was “better” than the other, perhaps “more Catholic” in the vernacular of this thread. Christ said it is the one who serves.
If the only act of mercy you do is inform the ignorant and admonish the sinner, and another person does all the rest but doesn’t do those two because of lack of intellectual assent, then who is more of a Catholic?
The question is by what scale do you measure someone’s Catholicity? Do you use the Church’s teachings which state that once baptized or accepted into the Church we are Catholic forever, or do you make up your own rules about who is “really” Catholic and who is not.
Back to the Star Bellied Sneetches, I’m afraid. Sorry. I’m not buying intellectual assent as an objective measure of Catholicity.
(continued)
"
This is what I mean by a condescending ad hominem attack which will undoubtedly put you on the defensive and prevent you from understanding it this time around, too. 
)