293 week in Taizé and with the Saturday evening lectio divina, preparing for Sunday Mass in Bose), cause the monastics to experience the Eucharist as a special moment and the highlight of their liturgical life (8.1). Reflecting on questions of recognition of other traditions, of reciprocity, and of their current solution of choosing a Roman Catholic presided liturgy, the monastics pose the very fundamental question: “do we have two Eucharists?” (8.2). Finally, they reflect on the now classic question of whether sharing the Eucharist is or should be the conclusion of, or a source for, the ecumenical process (8.3). PART THREE CONCLUSION: IMPLICATIONS, SUGGESTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS Chapters 9 and 10 articulate possible implications of the theological rationale embedded in the practice of Eucharistic hospitality as encountered in Taizé and Bose and in the experiences of the monastics as listed in chapters 4-8, and how they affect the debate on Eucharistic sharing in ecumenical contexts. Each section formulates an implication and substantiates it by discussing relevant observations from the empirical study within the broader context – with reference to the status quaestionis described in Chapter 1. Chapter 9 focusses on priorities and preconditions; Chapter 10 addresses the future of the ecumenical process. Christian division is the scandal. Attempts to overcome this scandal, especially through Eucharistic hospitality, may be temporal and provisional solutions and, as such, indefinite and partly inadequate yet they rightfully express and foster the real but incomplete communion that exists in Baptism (9.1). Eucharistic sharing does not necessarily reduce ecumenical commitment but comforts the wounds of division. This insight counters – or at least challenges – a key argument against Eucharistic hospitality (9.2). Taizé and Bose cultivate trust in the Triune God, the Easter mystery, the sacrament of Baptism, and their fellow monastics in order to take a ‘leap of faith’ towards unity. Their practice of Eucharistic hospitality expresses this trust. In addition, its cultivation enables a maximization of recognition of other traditions (9.3). Taizé and Bose have managed to enter into a dynamic relationship between common life and common Eucharist that both celebrates imperfect unity and directs towards fuller communion. This dynamic has the potential to overcome the Rahner-Fries paradox and the impasse of the source-versussummit debate (10.1). The communities act as ‘nodes’ in the network of confessional churches. The monastics express a growing, inclusive faithfulness towards multiple ecclesial traditions and a practical belonging to multiple
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw