CHAPTER 11: SUGGESTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 273 In short, I would suggest that the practice of Eucharistic hospitality as it functions to promote Christian unity in the ecumenical communities of Taizé and Bose be acknowledged by the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church and its fruits appreciated; that its embedded theological rationale be received; and that this practice be properly facilitated and encouraged in these particular contexts as well as in similar conditions elsewhere (considering the principle of ‘potential transformative resonance’) for the benefit of the common process towards Christian unity. However, careful consideration is needed to discern which contexts sufficiently resemble the situation, commitment, and spiritual disposition encountered in Taizé and Bose. I have suggested some criteria in section 9.2: that these contexts should be able to embrace the ambivalent character of the practice including the pain and struggle that it involves; that they acknowledge the existential unity already realized in Baptism; that they have a durable and substantial form of common life at the basis of their spirituality; and that they are able to anticipate future full communion through joint effort to arrive at that goal. 11.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH INTO THE EUCHARIST IN ECUMENICAL CONTEXTS Before providing several recommendations, I want signal two ‘blind spots’ in the data collected for this research that would require attention in future research. The apparent lack of interest in these topics can be explained by the focus of this research on Eucharistic hospitality offered by the Roman Catholic Church. Firstly, the issue of reciprocity in Eucharistic sharing has only been partially addressed in this research. The monastics have addressed the question in the interviews only in passing, expressing their desire for more reciprocity, and indicating that, sometimes, the lack of mutuality causes people to refrain from receiving Communion even when it is offered. The notions of the exchange of gifts, the supra-denominational nature of the Eucharist, the cultivation of trust, and of the maximization of recognition as encountered in this study all point in the direction of extending the possibilities of reciprocal Eucharistic hospitality. However, given the complex variety of non-Catholic theological and liturgical contexts involved, it would require a more contextual inquiry to address this point further. Secondly, a particularly sensitive and urgent issue in the ecumenical dialogue has been left largely untouched in this study: the question of the
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw