CHAPTER 9: IMPLICATIONS I 247 force ecumenical progress. 534 Yet, within the communities, sharing has resulted in ‘organic growth’, as the monastics call it. The communities, as such, have had a decades-long history of coalescence of traditions to the point where they belong to all and are exclusive to none. Each individual member, however, needs to walk his or her own path in order to authentically reach that level. This can happen through participation: participation is the way to learn and to grow, not the final result of a theoretical dialogue or negotiation. The interviewees indicate that witnessing and partaking of the Eucharist in their communities has sparked or revitalized their interest in the sacrament. As such, their practices have served not only ecumenical and pastoral purposes, but also mystagogic or catechetical ends. Discussion ‘Stagnation means decline’ may not be the typical theological formula, but it does relate to the experiences and convictions of the monastics. Radically identifying Christian division as a ‘scandal,’ the monastics regard any action – or lack of action – that obstructs or even reverses ecumenical progress as equally scandalous. In their view, this principle has concrete consequences when it comes to the practice of Eucharistic hospitality and the responses to it by others. From this starting point, not sharing the Eucharist can be just as – or indeed even more – scandalous as Eucharistic sharing in the absence of full visible unity. Thus, the question, ‘is it valid or desirable that the Eucharist be shared in this phase of the ecumenical process?’ cannot be the only one. Reversing the logic of the question, the communities simultaneously wonder: ‘is it valid or desirable that the Eucharist is not being shared in this phase of the ecumenical process?’ The latter question resembles the eagerness to advance on the path of ecumenical rapprochement, while the former primarily defends theological, ecclesial, and denominational integrity. The monastics address both questions 534 Only the brief episode in 1972, when Waldensian pastor Brother Daniel presided over the Eucharistic liturgies in Bose, could be interpreted as provocative. However, Brother BF interprets the bishop’s initial reaction (or better: lack of response) as a policy of tolerance, and hence, as silent endorsement. It appears as if Eucharistic hospitality the other way around, initiated by the Roman Catholic Church, however, has always had support, though not equivocally. Taizé’s practice was initiated and promoted by the bishop of Autun and acquired the approval of the PCPCU later, while Bose found a patron in Cardinal Martini of Milan when the local bishop of Biella criticized the presence of non-Catholics in the community and imposed sanctions. Taizé has, however, promoted the practice of Eucharistic hospitality on multiple occasions.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw