266 PART THREE: CONCLUSIONS The monastics, especially the non-Catholics, have indicated that they have grown a deeper understanding and appreciation of the Eucharist. The participatory way of learning has strongly contributed to their process. Discussion Receptive ecumenism as a particular adaptation of spiritual ecumenism seems to be a promising emerging ecumenical strategy, only recently articulated by Paul Murray. This research itself departs from core principles of receptive ecumenism. Most importantly, it has adopted a benevolent attitude towards phenomena and subjects at and beyond the boundaries of the Roman Catholic Church in order to explore what the Church can learn from them. As such, this research aims at enriching the Catholic Church’s ecumenical reality in the current phase of ecumenism. It tries to contribute to the questions formulated by Paul Murray, which indicate the goal of receptive ecumenism: “What does it mean to anticipate in current conditions the call to configured communion? What is the appropriate ethic for life between the times in relation to this calling?”558 The monastic communities of Bose and Taizé also find themselves in the framework of receptive ecumenism. With their strong commitment to spiritual ecumenism and focus on an ‘ethic for the time in between’, the communities can be regarded as forerunners of this strategy avant la lettre. As such, even though they themselves explicitly avoid this term, the question should be asked to which extent the communities could, or even should, be regarded as models or examples to be followed. The hesitancy to define themselves as ‘models’ is surely partly generated by the fact that their practice is utterly contextual. This dimension should be taken very seriously when considering any imitation of the way these monasteries practice Eucharistic hospitality. They do not provide a blueprint of successful ecumenical endeavor, nor can or do they wish to act as canonical precedents entitling other initiatives to claim a similar arrangement regarding the Eucharist. They themselves experience their position as privileged: they are deeply thankful for being allowed and enabled to celebrate the Eucharist together. However, their practice of Eucharistic sharing is a consequence of, and maybe even a prerequisite for, the specific ecumenical path of the communities. As monasteries, the communities find themselves at the crossroads of the individual and the communal or institutional with (at least 558 Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism - Establishing the Agenda,” 12.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw