270 PART THREE: CONCLUSIONS of Eucharistic hospitality. However, it seems to me that with regard to this practice, too, the communities meet the dispositions listed by the International Theological Commission to help identify authentic manifestations of the sensus fidelium: a) participation in the life of the church; b) listening to the word of God; c) openness to reason; d) adherence to the magisterium; e) holiness – humility, freedom and joy; f) seeking the edification of the church. 563 Therefore, especially in the current liminal phase of the ecumenical process, I would argue that it is wise and valid to incorporate lessons that can be learned from the experiences with Eucharistic hospitality in Taizé and Bose into the theological framework and the regulations of the Roman Catholic Church. Secondly, I would urge church leaders to seriously entertain the possibility that Eucharistic hospitality might indeed be an authentic expression of the sensus fidei and thus a viable path forward towards recovery of ecclesial unity. I prefer the word recovery here over terms like restoration or promotion as it aligns with the medicinal language of illness and health as employed in the interviews, while avoiding constructivist visions on Christian unity. The monastics speak of suffering, wounds, pain, and struggle with regard to Christian division while turning to the Eucharist as a comforting oil/salve and medicine. In this context, they diagnose Christian division to be the illness rather than the sharing of the Eucharist. At the same time, while trusting in the healing powers of the Eucharist, they do not regard it a panacea. They do, however, consider it a precondition for their communal life as Christians from different denominations in which their efforts for Christian unity can flourish. As such, sharing the Eucharist does not only have an incidental, individual significance (which has already been acknowledged in the preconditions listed in the regulations concerning communicatio in sacris) but also a substantial structural, ecclesiological dimension. This study does not suggest that churches should allow for Eucharistic sharing without genuine efforts by all involved to promote ecumenical growth. Indeed, the principle of sharing the Eucharist as expression of unity remains highly important and needs to be substantially realized, even if the contexts studied consider their current situation of imperfect but maturing unity as answering to this aspect sufficiently. It simply suggests that the leap of faith required for Eucharistic sharing can actually reinvigorate the ecumenical momentum so desired in so far as it overcomes the paralyzing paradox of the classical source-versus-summit scheme and, instead, fuels the dynamics of 563 International Theological Commission, “Sensus Fidei in the Life of the Church,” secs. 88– 105.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw