242 PART TWO: AN EMPIRICAL ACCOUNT Thirdly, the Eucharist is positioned within the now classic scheme of source versus summit, as taken from Lumen Gentium 11 and applied to the question of Eucharistic sharing. The monastics’ response to this scheme is not unambiguous and their practice does not seem to resolve all questions involved. However, they understand the Eucharist to address several issues at once. I have reiterated the comments of Brother BF highlighting how he experiences sharing the Eucharist as a palliative medicine. Note that his interpretation of the Eucharist as palliative medicine clearly differs from the classical Ignatian understanding of the Eucharist as a medicine of immortality. When past hostility, misunderstandings, and mutual caricatures have been abandoned, the Eucharist can help to comfort the wounds caused by them. One could argue that this is a function of the Eucharist that precedes and accompanies its function as a source of unity, especially in ecumenical relations. In these communities, in which reconciliation and mutual learning takes place through practical exercise (see section 5.3), the relieving effect of sharing the Eucharist fosters the process of healing and growth. The experience of BF and both communities advocate sharing the Eucharist in relatively early stages of ecclesial reunion, especially when compared to the strict view on the Eucharist as the end of the ecumenical path. Thanks to the comforting effect, the wounds can start to heal, a process in which the Eucharist again plays an important role. BF’s experience contests the idea that sharing the Eucharist is an expression of false irenism, as if unity is already fully established. Nor does it attribute exuberant qualities to the Eucharist with regard to the restoration of unity. Sharing the Eucharist plays different roles throughout the ecumenical process as this process gradually leads to restoration of full visible unity.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw