This text sets out to explore the possibility of using phenomenology as a bridge between philosophy and theology in order to more deeply understand the Eucharist as a divine-human encounter. This dialogue between phenomenology and sacramental theology on the subject of the Eucharist is its fundamental dialectic. Donald Wallenfang utilizes an ecumenical framework for his argument, since the main phenomenological traditions used are those of J. L. Marion (Catholic), Paul Ricoeur (Protestant), and Emmanuel Levinas (Jewish). After a brief description of phenomenology and sacramental theology, he then presents the main themes that frame the text, those of the phenomenology of manifestation (Marion), on the one hand, and the phenomenology of proclamation (Ricouer and Levinas), on the other. He further develops the proclamation component by opening it to the role of attestation. The phenomenological promise of the first half of the text claims a unique application toward the end of the second half when these phenomenological conversations meet the human-divine relation of sacrament in a discussion of intercourse (though not intimacy), sexuality, and love—an ontological trajectory that is then carried into eucharistic encounter. It is here, where Wallenfang's well-prepared phenomenological discourses are put in conversation with the concepts of relationship and personhood, that the text hits its stride. It is at this point that the author touches on the heart of the matter, for the Eucharist is fundamentally a relational reality, an encounter of personhood.

There is much to be gained from the project Wallenfang puts forth. It is best suited to a graduate-level course where contrasting visions would be natural dialogue partners. For example, the author turns to a limited use of Louis-Marie Chauvet in the latter part of the text, an interesting choice given that Chauvet rejects the Thomistic metaphysic that grounds the eucharistic understanding of Marion (and seems essential to Wallenfang's perspective). A fuller presentation of Chauvet would show an alternative understanding of sacrament and Eucharist where manifestation of being is distinct from the more instrumental approach found in Marion and Wallenfang; such distinctions and choices would make for excellent graduate-level discussion.

The text is scholarly, precise, and well organized. The author reminds the reader of his methodology and aims throughout the work. Drawing on Marion as he does, the author focuses on the Eucharist as object (the language of Thomistic metaphysics inherent in transubstantiation is primary). However, there is another conversation that is not addressed but needs to occur, one grounded in the vision of Vatican II, the early history of the church, and the New Testament. This latter perspective provides a dynamic understanding of symbol and sacrament that results in Eucharist as both object and action. In turn, this leads to an interaction between Eucharist and being that ends not in silence and adoration (as concluded by Marion through Wallenfang), but in a process of becoming through service. Eucharist as object focuses on consecration, while Eucharist as a dynamic relation of object and action concentrates on communion as focal point of eucharistic encounter. In a related construct, Wallenfang speaks of the meeting point of bread and body, wine and blood, Divine and human, as a hypostatic reality. An alternative to this speaks of these eucharistic meeting points as transformative and eschatological experiences with a strong ethical drive to live these encounters out in the world. Finally, though he mentions these in passing, he spends little time on the apophatic and the anamnetic, and these are both essential in eucharistic encounter, as is a more in-depth discussion of the paschal mystery. These dialectical choices, or their lack, make Wallenfang's text an important dialogue partner in a larger conversation within a course context. The next step is to place this text in conversation with a hermeneutic of encounter grounded in both the work of Chauvet and possibly that of Eastern Orthodox authors who explore in detail the topics mentioned above to which Wallenfang only alludes. Such a conversation would build on the contribution that Wallenfang makes in this text, a conversation that could open more clearly the implications of choosing silence or action, being or becoming.