I was struck by something in the Pope’s letter to Patriarch Bartholomew, and I don’t know whether I should have been.  Pope Francis wrote that there is no longer “any impediment to Eucharistic communion which cannot be overcome through prayer, the purification of hearts, dialogue and the affirmation of truth.” What struck me was the use of “Eucharistic communion” rather than “full communion.”

But like I said, I’m not sure whether this actually should be striking. Full communion implies Eucharistic communion. Similarly, lack of full communion, implies lack of Eucharistic communion. There is some nuance, but as a general rule, the Catholic Church is only in “Eucharistic” communion with churches with whom it is in “full” communion. Or, put another way, it’s only in Eucharistic communion with itself.

But the reason why it seems like this statement might be striking is that it doesn’t necessarily have to be that way. Full communion certainly always implies Eucharistic communion, but we could theoretically have Eucharistic communion with churches that nevertheless maintain some independence. And I wonder if the Pope’s letter is a way of saying that the Orthodox churches could maintain an independence – a greater independence than the Eastern churches within the Catholic Church – yet we could become close enough to have Eucharistic communion.

I think that’s a potentially exciting idea, but I recognize that it’s possible I’m just reading too much into the Pope’s words. It’s possible that if I were more familiar with church documents, I would know that this is unexceptional. It’s possible that something got lost when the document was translated into English. I would love to see someone with more knowledge in this area discuss this, but so far I haven’t seen anything.