CHAPTER 11: SUGGESTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 271 ecclesial communion and Eucharistic communion as mutual preconditions propelled towards full visible unity. It seems appropriate not only to acknowledge this function of Eucharistic sharing, but also to appreciate it and even to accommodate it. Another suggestion this study proposes is to overcome an exclusivist ecclesiology. The fundamentally supra-denominational nature of the Eucharist (parallel to Baptism) as expressed by the monastics primarily calls for a generous recognition of ‘Eucharist’ beyond the visible boundaries of any one denomination. The mystery of the Eucharist transcends the schemes of causeand-effect that still seem to frustrate the ecumenical debates on Eucharist and ministry. Secondly, denominational belongingmay be very helpful in nurturing (a specific manifestation of) Christian identity, but it should not reduce this identity to that denomination. In other words, denominational identities should not – or even cannot – be mutually exclusive. The ecumenical communities indicate that, and how, double belonging, whether formal/institutional or ‘merely’ sacramental, can function. Based on my research, I would encourage churches to enable such double belonging as a way to fully recognize other Christians, allowing the people and communities involved (which may include not only ecumenical monastic communities, but also interchurch families, ecumenical study groups, ecumenically engaged parishes, etcetera) to act as nodes in the network of assemblies of Christians that make up the church. This may be another step towards realizing the “post-confessional dimension of the church,”564 as one brother phrases his interpretation of the ecclesiological reality in Taizé. Both elements – acknowledging Eucharistic sharing as a means for restoration of unity and enabling ecumenical communities to act as nodes through multiple belonging or fidelity – could be integrated into canon law. Current regulations do not facilitate either element. As a consequence, the Eucharistic practices of Taizé and Bose depend on the benevolence of the bishop in interpreting canon law. If, instead, the ecumenical motive for practicing Eucharistic hospitality were to be acknowledged and integrated into the regulations and guidelines, the commitment of the communities involved would be actively supported and the church would be enabled to benefit from their special circumstances even more. Indeed, this would recognize and promote what the communities already are: places where divided traditions can find reconciliation and grow towards a more perfect unity. 564 BE-1,14a.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw