Fokke Wouda

CHAPTER 10: IMPLICATIONS II 255 administered. Therefore, even though all brothers receive Communion on a daily basis, they do not all participate in the entire celebration of the Eucharist. This is partly done for practical reasons and as the result of the process of ongoing negotiation and evolution that takes place within the community. On a deeper level, it resembles the role attributed to the Eucharist: mediating Christ. As such, it is fundamental but, at the same time, it is a modest support of the ‘core business’ of the community, which is living the Gospel values in service of the church and the world. Discussion Karl Rahner and Heinrich Fries formulated the paradox in which the question of Eucharistic hospitality finds itself. They note: “as long as no eucharistic fellowship exists, there will be no church fellowship, and as long as no church fellowship exists, there will be no eucharistic fellowship.”538 It seems to me that the communities of Taizé and Bose have found a way out of this paradox by their unprecedented spiritual journey, which includes multiple ways of ecclesiastical belonging and Eucharistic sharing. The Roman Catholic Church, so far, has based its principles and regulations concerning Eucharistic sharing on the second premise of the paradox, arguing that sharing the Eucharist is an expression of full communion. The consequence of this line of argumentation is that one cannot celebrate unity by sharing the Eucharist if such unity has not yet been fully realized. Exceptions to this starting point are only permitted because of individual, pastoral reasons and not fueled by ecumenical motives, as I have argued in sections 1.3 and 1.4. Even though the exceptional practices of Bose and Taizé have emerged in order to address profound pastoral questions in the history of the communities, my research has shown that an explicitly ecumenical desire equally fuels the motivation of the monastics to join in common worship and to receive Communion together. Moreover, the practice provides comfort to the wounds of division and inspires further ecumenical commitment. Overall, I would argue that the communities have indeed entered into an unprecedented dynamic in which imperfect but real communion through Baptism539 is celebrated in, and enabled to mature, by engaging in a shared life and Eucharistic sharing simultaneously. This dynamic presupposes a certain level of unity in faith and ecclesiastical unity, sufficiently reflecting the principle of expression of unity mentioned in Unitatis Redintegratio sec. 8, but at the same 538 Fries and Rahner, Unity of the Churches, 123. 539 Cf. UR, sec. 3; LG, sec. 15.

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw