“Before Vatican II there was never any mention of “imperfect communion” or “full communion” with the Orthodox church or any of the Protestant churches. That’s because it wasn’t Catholic teaching.”
That’s not true. You can look up old books and see that both phrases were used in English in theological discussions. Take, for instance, the following:
“I.S.F. Buckingham, Esq., author of “Memoirs of Mary, Queen of Scots,” and Mr. Newman, were received into full communion with the Roman Catholic church last week at Oscott, having previously occupied an ambiguous position not clearly ascertained.” (Bengal Catholic Herald, Vol. XI, page 330 - Year 1845).
The very fact you have a Catholic publication referring to “full communion” would imply that there is a lesser possibility or position (i.e. an imperfect communion). Also, these ideas certainly have always come up in canon law for baptized persons outside of the Church have more standing than those who are not baptized at all. That can only be because they have an imperfect communion rather than no communion at all. This is discusses on page 146 (c. 96) of New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, by John P. Beal.
Even if it were true that no Catholic council used the expressions “full communion” and “imperfect communion” before 1965, it seems clear to me that it reflects an obvious necessity of understanding, of fact. How else are you going to regard a baptized person, possibly receiving other sacraments, except as in “imperfect communion”?
Exactly.
When discussing individual persons who are in the process of converting to the Catholic Faith that is true (which is what you quoted). However, the Catholic Church has never taught that non-Catholic churches in and of themselves were in partial communion or any part of “the Church” (which is what I was referring to).