Volumen 14 (2022): Edición 1 (April 2022)

The question of the term “Eucharistic Sharing” being a barrier or a bridge to ecume nism calls for a wider review, as it is only one of several terms used to speak of eucharist across denominational lines. It is important to delineate between them, to determine which is more appropriate, and in what context. This paper presents the question through the hermeneutic of interchurch families, where the question of eucharistic sharing impacts Sunday by Sunday. The term itself, while valuable as a touchstone, demonstrates its full value only insofar as the hard work of discerning appropriate terminology takes place, by the couple together with their churches. It is that work, at once challenging and rewarding, which will build the bridge across ecumenical estrangements.

In studying those issues that separate the Eastern and Western churches and prevent reciprocal eucharistic hospitality most attention is devoted to precise matters of doctrine that have become contested over time. This paper argues that there are larger issues of theological approach which prevent progress in dialogue and mutual understanding. While Westerners focus on history as the underpinning of doctrine, Easterners focus on eschatology as its “completion.” But both sides should note that neither approach can grasp the reality of ‘the present’ which is the moment of liturgical action. Noting these divergent perspectives may enrich dialogue; while acknowledging their respective limits may provide a way through the current impasse.

This paper discusses intercommunion from a Protestant, post-Leuenbergian perspective. Its first section takes a realist view, discussing denominational barriers to intercommunion through an explanation of why ecumenical theology as doctrinal discourse seems to be at a deadlock, moving in a circle of two opposing hermeneutics with no common ground. The second section takes a visionary’s perspective, sketching three types of vision on the way to bridging denominational barriers and widening the understanding of intercommunion by a) taking counterfactual visions from biblical stories as encouraging narratives of intercommunion, b) suggesting a role for negative theology as a potential common ground leading to valuation and perspective-taking regarding different denominational teachings on communion and c) studying performances of present or potential practices signifying intercommunion in a broader scope of understanding.

Restricted participation in celebrating eucharist remains a very visible victim of ecclesial divisions. Ecclesial self-understandings, theologies of eucharist, and notions of ecumenicity are deeply interwoven. Modern ecumenical engagement presupposes a more critical historiography in its attempts to deconstruct naively self-interested narrations of ecclesial identity, particularly in the ways in which competing visions of apostolicity were connected to a primal plenitude of koinonia. Such deconstruction draws on the sustained and liminal experiences of encounter and dialogue between the churches over the course of the past century, which is itself an expression of communion not unlike that discerned by historians of earliest Christianity.

According to Heinrich Fries and Karl Rahner (1983), Eucharistic communion and church fellowship are interdependent realities. In the context of divided Christianity, how can churches start to restore them simultaneously? This paper explores how two ecumenical monastic communities attempt to navigate their way out, hoping that their experiences might indicate a future path. In these communities, the Roman Catholic Church extends eucharistic hospitality to their non-Catholic members in a unique effort to promote and accommodate their ecumenical significance. Based on my ethnographic research in the communities, this paper describes the practice of eucharistic hospitality in these particular contexts and the implications for reimagining the place of the Eucharist in the ecumenical process.

The member churches of the Anglican Communion take different approaches to the admission of children to communion before they are confirmed. This article surveys developments in the Church of England, which introduced the practice experimentally in 1996 and gave it official sanction in 2006. Since then, dioceses have developed materials for preparation and training. There is a noticeable emphasis on the meal and community aspects of the eucharist in this provision, which tends to draw rather selectively on Scripture to provide a foundation. More active involvement of biblical scholars, theologians and liturgists would provide balance and depth. In the life of the church, such dialogue might contribute towards more imaginative involvement of children in the eucharist, beyond simply allowing them to be communicants.

This paper aims to offer reflections on the Eucharistic sharing based on the Church of Armenia’s historical experience and present situation. Rather than giving comprehensive or official standpoints, the paper aims to be a theological voice from the Church of Armenia with a pan-Christian perspective in mind. As intercommunion is not an isolated issue but is always linked to various aspects, the paper explores the concept of Oriental Orthodoxy and the Church of Armenia’s role in the Christian world. Next, the paper outlines and discusses the main Armenian views on intercommunion as they are today. Based on the previous observations and the Armenian Eucharistic experience, the paper draws conceptual principles as potential ways towards sacramental unity. I suggest two trajectories that are common historical traits among Armenian Christians, namely, forming friendships and mutual recognition of holy living.

Any collection of papers on the Eucharist – which is the foundation of the Church – would not be complete if we did not look at the actual communities that celebrate. Those communities, our parishes, are ‘the cells of worship life’ and it is in them that we discover the “catholic” – the completeness – in our experience that allows to understand the wider church but that the diocese or the oikumene. So if there is to be eucharistic sharing, it requires us to think about this reality: the parish and how people relate within it. This essay is a contribution to this reflection and calls us to recognise that while theologians “think global,” Christians “act local.” – Thomas O’Loughlin.