Perspectief 2014-25

Perspectief 38 Communion in Taizé Catholic Church tolerates the situation in Taizé, without promoting it. The practice has never been promoted as official Church policy regarding the Eucharist in ecumenical context. Instead, the spiritual ecumenism lived by the community is stressed. The concept of Taizé has gradually received appreciation. It does profit from the small space offered by ecclesial law. Thus it does occupy a certain space within the legal framework of the Catholic Church. However, the Church has refrained from defining this space and from formally authorizing the practice. The third step was to reflect upon the situation from the perspective of Catholic theology. The communio ecclesiology, which has become the dominant interpretation of the Second Vatican Council and still promoted by the president of the pontifical council for the promotion of Christian unity Cardinal Koch, appears to be the motive for the hesitation of the Church to allow common worship without visible communion. Communion ecclesiology and ecclesial law both stress the dimension of the Eucharist as expressing unity, instead of the Eucharist constituting unity, as precondition for table communion. Communion ecclesiology certainly contains a warning for Taizé against indifferentism or acceptance of established pluralism. On the other hand, the theology and practice of Taizé challenges Catholic theology to consider once more the consequences of the concept of communion established in baptism, already present in Catholic theology. Taizé’s spirituality of reconciliation stresses the ontological communion, whereas Catholic theology and law stress visible communion as precondition for common worship. Further consideration of this tension is in the interest of the ecumenical debate. From both perspectives the practice of Taizé is to be considered as an exceptional situation. It is the product of the original spirituality of brother Roger and his brothers, of the ecumenical optimism that characterizes the early post Conciliar period, and of the willingness of local and universal ecclesial authorities to contribute to this spirituality. Under these unique conditions the practice evolved into its current shape. Being explicitly an exception to the rule, it cannot serve as a model or a precedent of Church policy regarding the Eucharist in ecumenical contexts. Current Catholic law and theology could not justify that yet. But neither was it intended to serve as a model. The situation in Taizé is a provisional solution for the urgent problem of Chris tian division.