200 PART TWO: AN EMPIRICAL ACCOUNT don’t pray together, then… then all those theological discussions are pointless, because, in the end, we won’t understand each other….459 I distinguish three elements that seem to be important in the way the monastics understand the role of their practice of Eucharistic sharing in the wider ecumenical process. First of all, it is important to them to engage with the reconciling power of the Gospel in a very concrete way: by living together and by partaking of the one Eucharist. To experience this in the concrete reality of their common life is a leap of faith and the primary purpose of the communities. Living this reality seems more important to the monastics than reflecting on it theologically, or advocating this way of life towards others. Secondly, they stress the imperfect nature of their practice: it does not represent the full visible unity they hope for. It does, however, indicate that such a unity is not only possible, but that it already exists and can be allowed to surface. As such, it anticipates unity in order to achieve it. Only in this sense do the monastics consider their practice a sign: it contradicts the status quo of division and shows that the unity that all hope for is possible. This, in a third instance, explains why the monastics refuse to define their own situation as a model. They consider it a temporary solution for their specific circumstances which cannot be copied. More importantly, what they live is an anticipated reality rather than a method. In other words, even though the consequence of their practice may be a deeper sense of unity, it is not a strategy that they seem to have purposefully employed. The monastics merely recognize this effect in retrospect. 6.5 SYNTHESIS The monastics radically interpret the notion of ‘scandal’ to refer to Christian division and the unwillingness to promote unity. Therefore, they believe that any act that supports and promotes Christian unity, in particular an act of sharing the sacrament of the Eucharist, cannot be regarded as scandalous. They do use this term occasionally to describe situations in which they choose not to partake of the Eucharist in particular situations, for example, when traveling or when a non-Catholic minister presides over a Eucharistic liturgy in Taizé. However, they are rather reluctant to use the term ‘scandal’ for the controversy that might be stirred because of such situations. The only time they consider it proper to use this term is when an act of Eucharistic sharing evidently causes 459 TA-1,42.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw