So, rejections of certain dogmatic teachings are not considered threats to those teachings themselves and are therefore tolerated? I'm thinking of the Melkites and Byzantine Rite communities that are in communion with Rome but reject 'Indulgences, Temporal Punishment, Purgatory, etc.'
Then it would seem that they would get into more trouble if they re-interpolated these teachings in an objectionable way, thus threatening the the teachings themselves, rather than acknowledging them as the RCC proclaims them but rejecting their validity within their communities.
So, it would seem there is a more serious treatment of heresy rather than disbelief. OK.
I am sure there are ways to tweak the language here to make it a better statement, but for our purposes here, I think you have come very close.
I would only add, for example and with reference to the idea of purgatory, there would have to be some teaching among the Melkites, that related to prayers for the dead, with the presumption that prayers for the dead have efficacy and of course that there be a need to do so.
Another example, toll houses. There would not be much of a scuffle about toll houses. Not all particulars would necessarily be accepted formally but it would not endanger the core teaching which is the need for and efficacy of prayers for the dead. This is how Father Hardon, again for example, can say what he says and not be entirely picked up formally by the universal teaching, but is not seen to be contrary to it. His work may be seen as good in a particular time and place in terms of expressing to ordinary folk that prayers for the dead are necessary and efficacious.
Also, I was wondering, do you know that there are four levels of the Baltimore catechism? In rank order they are meant to teach young children, youth, young adults and adults. Most of the time the texts that are offered in these kinds of discussions come from the most basic catechism. It's like reading Grimm's Fairy Tales as a way of teaching the formal and systematic principles of Catholic moral theology at a seminary level, with all that entails in terms of historical development and relationship to other Church doctrine. I am not saying that the catechisms did the very best job possible but they must be understood in context.
I don't mean this to be an exhaustive response but I think we are close to being accurate here.