"Full communion," its meaning, and its implications

[INPEFESS]

Oftentimes as trads we hear the phrase "in full communion" with the Pope. 

What does this mean?  What is its importance? 

"Full communion" (as opposed to "partial communion") is a novel theological concept created to reflect the New Order's new ecclesiology, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Catholic Church are not one and the same thing; rather, the former subsists in the latter. As then-Cardinal Ratzinger put it, the "Church of Christ," therefore, is a "broader reality" than the Catholic Church. It includes also all those "particular churches" (i.e. schismatics) and "ecclesial communions" (i.e. heretics) not in communion with Rome. Rather than define heresy and schism by that truth or charity which they lack, as the Church has always done, Rome now defines heresy and schism according to that truth or charity which they are said to contain. "Partial communion" describes the intra-ecclesiastical relationship between the Catholic Church and the particular churches and ecclesial communions. 

Does it matter that we think the Pope is wrong on the NO?

Ironically, the new ecclesiology seems to apply to everyone but those who "think the pope is wrong on the NO."

Is full communion a requirement for salvation?

There seems to be no definitive answer to this question from Rome, but the interpretation of the documents on the part of the conciliar authorities seems to make it quite clear that the answer to your question is "no."

  Can the Pope himself leave communion with his predecessors? 

Not while retaining his office.

Also, what is the traditional basis for clamoring to this phrase?  Oftentimes it is seen as a dig or shot at a traditionalist for not 'accepting' the Council or post-conciliar practices.

It is simply a phrase used to justify the new ecclesiology. Apologists for the New Order simply use the term without knowing how the conciliar authorities are themselves interpreting it.

[CoolCat]

"The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honoured by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter". Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church". With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness (of Communion) that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist" --Paul VI



Full communion involves completeness of "those bonds of communion – faith, sacraments and pastoral governance – that permit the Faithful to receive the life of grace within the Church."

It's not really so hard to undertstand. The only way to discard this term completely is, well, discarding the legitimacy of the pope who originally proclaimed this. It all boils down to that.

[INPEFESS]

Full communion involves completeness of "those bonds of communion – faith, sacraments and pastoral governance – that permit the Faithful to receive the life of grace within the Church."

It's not really so hard to undertstand. The only way to discard this term completely is, well, discarding the legitimacy of the pope who originally proclaimed this. It all boils down to that.

The Church disregarded such a concept for 2000 years; I don't think Paul VI can just change it willy-nilly as though he can change revealed truth.

The "bonds of communion" are only meaningful if they are all simultaneously present; they are meaningless as "bonds" if even one of them is missing. Christ showed us a beautiful analogy of the Church as seen in nature: the tree. A branch that is cut off still retains the same form of the tree, but it is not at all part--neither partially nor fully--of the tree, and it dies without it. It is meaningless to speak of the branch as though, since it shares the same form, it still derives some partial life-force from the tree when it is cut off from the life source. The life-force of the tree is of no avail whatsoever to the separated member, despite the similarities in appearances.

13. Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that "there is one God, one faith, one baptism"[16] may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that "those who are not with Christ are against Him,"[17] and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore "without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate."[18] Let them hear Jerome who, while the Church was torn into three parts by schism, tells us that whenever someone tried to persuade him to join his group he always exclaimed: "He who is for the See of Peter is for me."[19] A schismatic flatters himself falsely if he asserts that he, too, has been washed in the waters of regeneration. Indeed Augustine would reply to such a man: "The branch has the same form when it has been cut off from the vine; but of what profit for it is the form, if it does not live from the root?"[20]