CHAPTER 1: ECUMENICAL PROGRESS AND STAGNATION 47 The sharing of Eucharistic communion in an inter-Church marriage or in an ecumenical dialogue would be in the spirit of the decree on ecumenism. This is evidently one of the ways in which two Churches can learn to grow together. The bishops who have used this provision, however, are far from numerous.119 Canonist Myriam Wijlens, in her comparative study of pre- and postconciliar legislation concerning sharing the Eucharist in ecumenical contexts, concludes that in today’s regulations governing Eucharistic sharing, the principle of 'means of grace' has only been applied to the spiritual need of individual non-Catholic Christians. It does not anticipate the use of Eucharistic sharing to promote restoration of unity between faith communities. Even when it comes to the churches of the East, with whom Eucharistic sharing is not only possible but even explicitly recommended, she notes: Analysis of the conciliar texts reveals that the foundation for communicatio in sacris in the Decree on Oriental Churches, however, is not so much based on the ecclesiological insights expressed in the Decree on Ecumenism; instead, it is governed by the principle of salvation of the soul of an individual baptized person.120 Referring to Tavard’s remarks, she continues: Considering that the legislation does not count for this dialectical and creative tension but only counts for the Eucharist as a means of grace, the challenge for further developments in legislation will be to adopt this dialectic relationship. Thus, in fact, this study has shown that the Catholic Church still has to face the challenge to provide for norms on sharing the Eucharist in which baptized non-Catholics are seen first 20–34, https://doi.org/10.1353/jur.2011.0033. Witte, too, stresses that the juxtaposed contents should be kept together. He concludes that juxtapositions “invite us to keep the space open between the differing positions they articulate. Keeping this space really open, sometimes against our natural inclination to reduce tensions, may be a key towards a fruitful dealing with juxtapositions and the reform intentions of Vatican II,” echoing Tavard’s concepts of dialectical relationship and creative tension between the two principles of UR, sec. 8. Following this interpretation of the Council, my research explores how Taizé and Bose inhabit the space provided by the tension articulated in the decree and how this relates to the advancing insight of the Secretariat and the Council. It thus contributes to the question to what extent this tension can be fruitfully used for the restoration of unity in today’s advanced ecumenical context as a next stage in the development of the regulations concerning communicatio in sacris. 119 George H. Tavard, Vatican II and the Ecumenical Way, Marquette Studies in Theology (Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press, 2007), 52. 120 Wijlens, Sharing the Eucharist, 363.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw