Theological reflection upon the Eucharist is dominated by two One approach interprets the Eucharist almost exclusively in theological terms, shaped by Scholasticism and the Reformation. Most discussions about the nature of the Eucharist, Eucharistic presence or the role of the priest follow these categories, even if they come in modern disguise. The other reads the Eucharist as an event which can be explored empirically. O'Loughlin develops a new understanding of the Eucharist. This can be done by looking afresh at the historical evidence and bringing it in dialogue with modern theology. In the past decades, historical research and new discoveries have changed our view of the origins and the development of the Eucharist. By bringing history into a fruitful dialogue with sacramental and liturgical theology, he shows not only ways how theology and practice can be brought closer together again, but also how current ecumenical divisions can be overcome. His book makes an important contribution to eucharistic theology, both for individual church traditions as well as for ecumenical dialogues.
I pretty much chose this book at random. I was looking for a book that discussed the history of Christian views of the Eucharist and particularly the controversies surrounding it. This was not that book. The author studiously avoided delving into these matters, instead focusing on what I would call philosophical questions surrounding the Eucharist, particularly humans as meal sharers and the significance of the meals Jesus shared with others, not limited to the Last Supper. So the book was fine as far as it went and I also got some good leads on the sort of book I was looking for.