CHAPTER 9: IMPLICATIONS I 249 international ecumenical contexts. Most importantly, however, the members of these communities simply live together, share everyday life, pray, and worship in common, and, indeed, share the Eucharist. The monastics have clearly expressed this common life to be their first and most important inspiration towards joining the communities and consider it the primary mission of their communities. The interviewees display a very interesting ambiguity when they speak of their communities’ ability to share the Eucharist. On the one hand, they affirm and appreciate the possibility of sharing the Eucharist with their brothers and sisters within their respective communities. On the other hand, however, they speak of sharing the Eucharist as still a general impossibility. They are very much aware of the fact that their practice of Eucharistic sharing, to some extent, violates the sign-of-unity-dimension of the Eucharist and that, for the majority of Christians, this practice is still out of reach. Therefore, they do not regard their own situation as the end of the process. For them, sharing the Eucharist does not mean that the final goal has been realized. Instead, they regard their own lifestyle, including the practice of Eucharistic hospitality, as active engagement in, and full commitment to, the ecumenical process that should find its conclusion in full visible unity. They consider their sharing of the Christian common life and their joint effort to promote unity to mature as sufficient ground for Eucharistic sharing. The monastics indicate that sharing the Eucharist has not obliterated the pain of division. They still regret, and suffer from, the lack of full visible unity. The interviewees express their doubts and discomfort with elements of the provisional solutions they have established. One aspect that they lament in particular is the lack of reciprocity in Eucharistic hospitality. To them, this is one of the clearest signs that their practice is provisional and only one step along the way towards unity and not yet the final stage of reconciliation. They also indicate that they share the struggles of their guests, all of whom must go through a process of discernment in order to evaluate the exceptional situation they encounter in Taizé and Bose. On some occasions, they can rejoice in a shared Eucharist, while, on other occasions, they suffer when guests cannot, or are not willing to, receive Communion with them. They do appreciate the latter occasions, however, acknowledging abstinence from Eucharistic sharing as authentic and valuable expressions of the same faithfulness and ecumenical commitment. Indeed, they do not consider Eucharistic sharing to be the only means to advance along the ecumenical path. The monastics appreciate the temporal and contextual solution of Eucharistic hospitality as practiced in their communities. They speak of the
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw