This is a challenging book – not in the sense that it is too hard to read but in the sense that it challenges our understandings about the Eucharist. That in itself is a good thing. The book is an exercise in historical theology and asks the question what do Christians think they are doing and have thought they were doing when they celebrated the Eucharist. The central theme of this book rests on O’Loughlin’s proposition that the Eucharist is ergon (work or activity) rather than logos (idea or proposition). His argument is that the Eucharist belongs to the domain of human doing before that of believing or reflection. For O’Loughlin the Eucharist

The problem for O’Loughlin is that the core theological values and ideas that surround the Eucharist are seen as the desire of later ages and not such a firm doctrinal datum of the Eucharist, as many assume. Now this is a big claim. While it is generally accepted that there is no one original theology of the Eucharist and in fact there seems to be a variety of theology and practice of the Eucharist in the early church, as Andrew McGowan shows us in his book Ascetic Eucharists (Oxford University Press, 1999), the argument that the thinking of later ages is somehow invalid in view of the world view of the first followers of Jesus, suggests that there is some primitive datum in relation to the theology of the Eucharist. This is a highly speculative claim. It may be that O’Loughlin, coming from the Roman Catholic tradition, is objecting to the idea of a single orthodox position imposed from above in that church, which may obscure the original theological insights related to the Eucharist. The appeal to a paradigmatic moment of institution, for example, may well be a desire of later ages, and the rigid enforcement of this view within some Christian traditions, perhaps his own, leads us – O’Loughlin himself points out – to the belief that these positions ‘have been present in the originating moment’ (p. 9). O’Loughlin himself views Christian experience as multiform, not just today, but always (p. 9). This observation may be accepted by many modern sacramental theologians, but to argue that the modern theology of the Eucharist is somehow invalid or deficient because it does not accord with the very little information we have about the Eucharist in the early church, seems tenuous. Perhaps a more extensive exploration of eucharistic theology and practice in the Christian tradition is needed. The arguments in this book seem to proceed in reaction to Roman Catholic tradition, even though the book’s subtitle is ‘origins and contemporary understandings’ of the Eucharist. An exploration of eucharistic theology within the Anglican tradition, for example, would show a theology not dependent on species and change of their substance, which O’Loughlin sees as problematic. Real presence ideas are not limited to this substance-based theology which O’Loughlin seems to decry.

To be fair, O’Loughlin clarifies his position by arguing that ‘all knowing takes place within traditions’ (p. 21). While this seems to be the opposite of what he is saying above, since ‘traditions’ could be seen as ‘a desire of later ages’, in reality it is not. O’Loughlin goes on to argue that knowing within traditions ‘can easily be confused with the search for origins, as if having found the “original kernel”’ from which all subsequent practices stem. This seems to clarify O’Loughlin’s issue: the insistence of some Church traditions of certain practices as being original. O’Loughlin’s purpose then becomes to examine the original practices and to see how these differ from and how they should guide present practice. So for O’Loughlin the practice of Christian liturgy becomes ‘anamnetic rather than mimetic’ (p. 24).

The book then turns to this pursuit of the original as an anamnetic practice. The first aspect examined is that of thanking the Father. For O’Loughlin this is the focus of eucharistic thinking, where the primary intention of the Eucharist relates to an activity, that is, the act of thanking and giving thanks to the Father. The problem, as O’Loughlin sees it, is that at the time the institution narrative became central to the eucharistic prayer the focus shifted from the Father to Jesus. A Christocentric focus is therefore seen as a problem, especially as it is realized in any cult of the sacrament as an object of worship, since for O’Loughlin, this turns the worshipper’s focus from the Father to Jesus. For O’Loughlin this represents an individualist focus, since the encounter with Jesus in such an individualist model, becomes central and the meal inheritance of the early Christians becomes problematic or merely metaphorical. The answer to this problem, in O’Loughlin’s analysis, is a return to the task of blessing the Father and recovering the basic eucharistic dimension of discipleship found in the sharing of meals. Now this creates huge difficulties for the Church, especially in any church where the encounter with Christ is seen as central and where there is any practice related to an extended reality of that encounter in communion of the sick or in eucharistic devotions.

In progressing his argument about a return to blessing the Father O’Loughlin spends time considering the importance of meals for humans as the source of community and prayer as well as food. Meals are seen to enact us in our ultimate concerns and are intimately involved with religion. The depth of our being is linked with meals and as such this locates the Eucharist within human life and the community of discipleship. O’Loughlin’s difficulty is that the idea of the Eucharist as a meal has been reduced to appearances, to a dramatic presentation and token. Where this happens, he says, we come to believe that food is simply the edible (p. 71). For O’Loughlin, the desire of the ages is seen as a process of marginalization in our thinking about the Eucharist. Now this, in view of the previous argument, suggests that the desire of the ages can be part of the meal: that the theology of the Eucharist, even the Christocentric, can be part of the meal, not forgetting of course the imperative to bless the Father as people gather to thank the Father for Christ and to feed on Christ. I wonder why this thought is not present and why the Christocentric aspects, not perhaps as focus, but as integral part, cannot be part of the meal. I appreciate O’Loughlin’s efforts to make the point that elements can so easily become abstract and intellectually definable substances, changed by some process of consecration and simply the edible, but it is hard to see why aspects of Christology are so marginalized and not embraced in the full eucharistic meal concept of thanking the Father for the presence of Christ as resurrected redeemer, present with his people in Scripture, song, gathering, priest/minister and meal. Here food is much more than simply the edible. Commensality is an important part, perhaps undervalued in our modern eucharistic celebrations, but it is only one part among others.

Apart from the criticisms I have made there is some excellent reflection in the book on the nature of meals and shared food. Chapter 5, ‘Meals and Christian Memories’ and Chapter 6 ‘Distinctive Memories: The Acts of Blessing and Recollection’ warrant careful reading and action by churches reminding Christian people that blessing takes place in the context of a meal and that this blessing is addressed to the Father. Significant reflection on one loaf and one cup is undertaken in Chapter 6. It is in the use of the loaf and the cup that O’Loughlin argues that shared food is the basis of humanity now as it was in the early church and that it can provide the genuine incarnational location for eucharistic activity. In saying this O’Loughlin makes the point that such a focus will require us to focus on the issue of breaking a loaf, as distinct from what is eaten. He admits that for many this will be difficult. I agree but it is also important to acknowledge that in breaking the loaf we are not only breaking bread together and sharing food but acknowledging that Christ was broken for us. The Gospels acknowledge this since it was Jesus who took the loaf, gave thanks to the Father, broke it and gave it to them saying: ‘This is my body, which is given for you’ (Lk. 22.19), the associations between the loaf and the body of Christ are clear. If we consider the matter in this way then I suggest that breaking the loaf focuses on both the meal and the giving of Christ’s body for us, without overpowering the Eucharist with the idea of what is eaten. I remain uncertain why O’Loughlin does not consider the matter in this way instead of so forcefully opting for the meal aspect at the expense of the christological. This remains my main criticism of the book.

I thoroughly recommend reading this excellent book which raises very challenging questions. There are some excellent reflections towards the end of the book on the distinction between ‘loaf’ and ‘bread’ and ‘cup’ and wine’ and on the notion of anamnesis. These warrant very careful consideration and also raise some very practical concerns about eucharistic practice. At the same time I question the emphasis on the meal tradition and the idea of ergon (work or activity) having precedence over logos (thought or idea) since making such a distinction between doing and being is not entirely helpful. Doing can sometimes distract into the very important tasks of ministry and we forget to be in the presence of God and his Son Jesus in the power of the Spirit. We sometimes see, wrongly I think, just being as less productive or even a waste of time and yet it has great spiritual power and direction for us. The Christian life needs to be a balance between being and doing and this is never easy. The Eucharist, too, if it is to be integral to our Christian journey and the food we need for that journey also needs to be a balance between being and doing. This is never easy as well. I remain unconvinced that this book has found that balance.