294 denominations even when they continue to struggle to materialize this belonging properly. Churches seeking reconciliation could benefit from this example by allowing more of such places to emerge (10.2). Communicatio in sacris can indeed be perceived as a “means (…) for the restoration of Christian unity.” In the communities, the Eucharist, as a means of grace, transcends the spiritual well-being of individual monastics and includes ecumenical reconciliation on an ecclesiological level, a dynamic which the current regulations fail to accommodate. It seems valid and valuable to complement current regulations concerning Eucharistic sharing so that they can enable Eucharistic hospitality on the basis of ecumenical reasons, too (10.3). Taizé and Bose offer concrete, tangible, and grassroot examples of receptive ecumenism. In the communities, learning is not only done cognitively, but even more so in a practical, participatory sense, and by engaging in the exchange of gifts so fundamental to spiritual ecumenism. The monastics do this in a critical yet faithful manner and with great openness to ‘creative integrity’ (10.4). Chapter 11, finally, lists some concrete suggestions for future policy of the communities and churches involved, as well as recommendations for future research. Noting that the communities could do more to substantiate the faithfulness of its members towards multiple ecclesial traditions, I suggest that the practice of Eucharistic hospitality as it functions to promote Christian unity in the ecumenical communities of Taizé and Bose be acknowledged and its fruits appreciated; that its embedded theological rationale be received; and that this practice be properly facilitated and encouraged in these particular contexts and beyond for the benefit of the common process towards Christian unity (11.1). Signaling that this study does not contribute substantially to the ecumenically pressing questions of reciprocity with regard to Eucharistic hospitality and to the issue of the ordination of women, I recommend further quantitative and qualitative research into Eucharistic hospitality in these particular communities and especially in other contexts as well as further systematic theological reflection based on the outcomes of this study. In addition, a comprehensive literary review of all contributions to the debate about Eucharistic hospitality is desirable (11.2). (Practical) theological research might be directed at exploring further the methods to study the sensus fidelium adequately using empirical methods and at defining its place within the ‘dialogue of voices’ that theology is (11.3).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw