CHAPTER 10: IMPLICATIONS II 263 The interviewees are very grateful for their local solutions. They understand their own practice to be very exceptional compared to the general situation, even though they are aware of the widespread yet unauthorized practice of Eucharistic hospitality in many other contexts. On the one hand, they seem confident that their practice corresponds with the exceptions listed in the Catholic Church’s regulations concerning Eucharistic sharing; however, on the other hand, they understand that their dispensation depends on the interpretation of those regulations by their local bishops. Discussion As indicated in section 1.4, canon law and the regulations of the Ecumenical Directory do not consider ecumenical motives to provide a sufficient basis for Eucharistic sharing at this stage of the process towards unity in the West. In addition, exceptions to the general rejection of Eucharistic sharing only provide space for individual and occasional Eucharistic hospitality, presupposing a grave necessity – initially understood as the danger of death. In his 2003 encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia, Pope John Paul II reiterated in clear terms that “the intention is to meet a grave spiritual need for the eternal salvation of an individual believer, not to bring about an intercommunion which remains impossible until the visible bonds of ecclesial communion are fully reestablished.”554 I have reiterated MyriamWijlens’ conclusion that: The legislation does not count for this dialectical and creative tension but only counts for the Eucharist as a means of grace, the challenge for further developments in legislation will be to adopt this dialectic relationship. Thus, in fact, this study has shown that the Catholic Church still has to face the challenge to provide for norms on sharing the Eucharist in which baptized non-Catholics are seen first as members of an Ecclesial Community or Church not in full communion with the Catholic Church.555 It can be argued that the solution of Eucharistic hospitality in Taizé and Bose primarily addresses the spiritual need of the individual monastics, and that current regulations, therefore, sufficiently cover their particular situation. This is, for instance, the opinion of Keith F. Pecklers, when considering the practice of Bose.556 554 EE, sec. 45. 555 Wijlens, Sharing the Eucharist, 365. 556 Pecklers, “Worship at the Ecumenical Monastery of Bose,” 210–11.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw