246 PART THREE: CONCLUSIONS 9.1 DIVISION IS THE SCANDAL, NOT SHARING THE EUCHARIST Implication Christian division is the scandal. Attempts to overcome this scandal, especially through Eucharistic hospitality, may be temporal and provisional solutions and, as such, indefinite and partly inadequate; yet, they rightfully express and foster the real but incomplete communion that exists in a shared Baptism. Mutual recognition of the sacrament of Baptism asks for Eucharistic communion. Only those initiatives that harm existing full visible communion should be considered as scandalous when they, in effect, promote division. Communion, then, is a process rather than a status to which the practice of Eucharistic sharing can contribute. Observations The interviewees use the term ‘scandal’ in two ways. They predominantly and with conviction speak of the divided state of the church as scandalous. Not only do they consider the lack of unity intrinsically problematic and contradictory to the Gospel and to the very being of the church, but they also acknowledge the harm it causes the mission of the church in the world. Only in a second instance, and with hesitation, do the monastics employ the term ‘scandal’ in relation to occasions of Eucharistic sharing in ecumenical contexts. For example, they do speak in terms of ‘avoiding scandal’ as a reason for not sharing the Eucharist in certain circumstances, and when they refer to controversies in the aftermath of instances of Eucharistic hospitality. However, they only seem to choose this particular word because it is generally attributed to such occasions, not because they themselves consider such occasions as highly problematic or, in fact, as scandalous. Moreover, to the communities, the practice of Eucharistic hospitality is actually a way to address the scandal of division. It is a strong conviction of the monastics that this scandal and, as a consequence, any lack of Eucharistic communion, is radically more problematic than attempts to restore unity and to live the imperfect unity, which, although obscured, remains present through Baptism. As such, they do consider the practice of Eucharistic hospitality without full visible unity as problematic but acceptable and even necessary in their specific ecumenical and monastic circumstances. From the start, these circumstances have emerged from a deep longing for the monastic common life with ecumenical openness. As such, as far as I can see, Taizé and Bose have never ‘operationalized’ Eucharistic sharing in a provocative way in order to
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw