CHAPTER 6: TEMPORARY SOLUTION FOR A PERMANENT PROBLEM 201 division amongst Christians who all belong to one Eucharistic communion. This is, for example, the case when Orthodox guests visit Bose. In Taizé and Bose, sharing the Eucharist is the default situation for the monastics. They obviously do not consider their own practice to be scandalous, as it effectively promotes unity amongst themselves. However, they are willing to abstain from partaking occasionally when sharing would potentially jeopardize full unity between community members and their churches of origin. This makes the practice of sharing the Eucharist a viable solution in the specific situation of these ecumenical monasteries. This solution fits with the context of either of the monasteries. In Bose, given its vast majority of Catholic members and the community’s embeddedness in the ecclesial structures of the Roman Catholic Church, it seems the logical choice to opt for a common Eucharist presided over by a Roman Catholic priest. Taizé has had its own process in which provisionality has played a significant role from the very start. The current practice fits with the desire of the community to celebrate the Eucharist together in obedient faithfulness towards all churches involved. As such, the choice for a Roman Catholic Eucharistic liturgy is somewhat pragmatic rather than dogmatic. It is clear that this choice does not imply that they regard Eucharistic liturgies in other traditions invalid. The beliefs of the monastics with regard to the relation between Eucharistic liturgies in different traditions will be explored in more detail in section 8.2. Despite the fact that their practice seems to be the best solution available at present, and despite many positive reactions from guests, the monastics themselves continue to experience their situation as well as their solution as problematic. They would not agree with the conclusion that it makes their situation easy or uncomplicated. They understand sharing the Eucharist to be of vital importance for the dynamic of their common life (see Chapter 5), yet they also realize that it is not the final solution for the problem of division, either inside or outside their communities. The interviews show how they question their practice, its theological and ecclesiological rationale, and the practical implications. Although this practice enables the common life and the organic growth within the community, it does not solve the pressing ecumenical questions that still divide the churches. In addition, the monastics are deeply concerned for their guests. They witness the struggle some of them go through, either resulting in their decision to share in the Eucharist or in deliberately withholding themselves from doing so. Both options are accepted by the monastics as valid and valuable expressions of ecumenical commitment.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw