What do you think?
Rate this book
Why Priests?: A Failed Tradition
In his most provocative book yet, Pulitzer Prize–winner Garry Wills asks the radical question: Why do we need priests?
Bestselling author of Papal Sin and Why I Am a Catholic, Garry Wills spent five years as a young man at a Jesuit seminary and nearly became a priest himself. But after a lifetime of study and reflection, he now poses some challenging questions: Why do we need priests at all? Why did the priesthood arise in a religion that began without it and opposed it? Would Christianity be stronger without the priesthood, as it was at its outset?
Meticulously researched, persuasively argued, and certain to spark debate, Why Priests? asserts that the anonymous Letter to Hebrews, a late addition to the New Testament canon, helped inject the priesthood into a Christianity where it did not exist, along with such concomitants as belief in an apostolic succession, the real presence in the Eucharist, the sacrificial interpretation of the Mass, and the ransom theory of redemption. But Wills does not expect the priesthood to fade entirely away. He just reminds us that Christianity did without it in the time of Peter and Paul with notable success.
Wills concludes with a powerful statement of his own beliefs in a book that will appeal to believers and nonbelievers alike and stand for years to come as a towering achievement.
Bestselling author of Papal Sin and Why I Am a Catholic, Garry Wills spent five years as a young man at a Jesuit seminary and nearly became a priest himself. But after a lifetime of study and reflection, he now poses some challenging questions: Why do we need priests at all? Why did the priesthood arise in a religion that began without it and opposed it? Would Christianity be stronger without the priesthood, as it was at its outset?
Meticulously researched, persuasively argued, and certain to spark debate, Why Priests? asserts that the anonymous Letter to Hebrews, a late addition to the New Testament canon, helped inject the priesthood into a Christianity where it did not exist, along with such concomitants as belief in an apostolic succession, the real presence in the Eucharist, the sacrificial interpretation of the Mass, and the ransom theory of redemption. But Wills does not expect the priesthood to fade entirely away. He just reminds us that Christianity did without it in the time of Peter and Paul with notable success.
Wills concludes with a powerful statement of his own beliefs in a book that will appeal to believers and nonbelievers alike and stand for years to come as a towering achievement.
316 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2013
57 people are currently reading
623 people want to read
About the author
Garry Wills
153 books251 followersGarry Wills is an American author, journalist, political philosopher, and historian, specializing in American history, politics, and religion, especially the history of the Catholic Church. He won a Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction in 1993.
Wills has written over fifty books and, since 1973, has been a frequent reviewer for The New York Review of Books. He became a faculty member of the history department at Northwestern University in 1980, where he is an Emeritus Professor of History.
Wills has written over fifty books and, since 1973, has been a frequent reviewer for The New York Review of Books. He became a faculty member of the history department at Northwestern University in 1980, where he is an Emeritus Professor of History.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 78 reviews
March 19, 2013
http://ensuingchapters.com/2013/03/19...
Why Priests?, the latest book from author and historian Garry Wills, is one slippery fish. The provocative title suggests a foundation-shaking argument, but the book is as much biblical history as contemporary critique. At first glance, the title may sound anti-Catholic, but Wills is a Catholic, and even dedicates the book to a priest.
And his argument has nothing to do with church scandals, church politics or past or current leadership.
So slippery is this book that is has two different titles, appearing in most places as Why Priests?: A Failed Tradition and in others as Why Priests?: The Real Meaning of the Eucharist.
I refer to it by the former, as that seems to be most prevalent, but I believe the latter provides a better description of the book. “A Failed Tradition” suggests an accusation or a polemic, but Wills answers the question, “Why priests?” not with slings and arrows, but with scripture and scholarship. It reads more like a history of the priesthood.
And what a curious history indeed. Wills sifts through a Gibraltar-esque mountain of biblical research, interpretation and second and tertiary sources. He explores the familiar (the AAA trinity of theologians: Augustine, Anselm and Aquinas) and the lesser known (Melchizedek). Most of his time is devoted not to priests directly, but to the Eucharist and the New Testament’s Letter to Hebrews.
Overall, this is a fascinating, well-written and -researched book, and I enjoyed the biblical scholarship and moments of philosophy. However, I’m not buying it as an argument against the priesthood. Only in his opening and conclusion does Wills concentrate his energies directly on the issue of priests. The rest is a somewhat tangential flow of information.
I recognize what Wills is doing: He’s searching every back alley and byway for any topic related to the priesthood. But it’s easy for the reader to lose the thread. The subject matter was interesting enough to keep me reading, but at the end of every chapter, I wasn’t quite connecting the material with the thesis.
In the chapter, “A New High Priest,” Wills turns from historian to philosopher, and this is when the book is most compelling. First, he examines the ritual of sacrifice and the logical pitfalls one stumbles upon when making parallels with crucifixion in Letter to Hebrews:
If what Jesus is doing is making out a bequest, the receivers of the bequest are not the receivers of the sacrifice—which is offered to the Father, who can get no benefits from the bequest [147].
Most interesting is the chapter titled, “Who Killed Jesus?” Again, scripture and theology are bound in logical paradoxes. Even Anselm, father of the ontological argument, struggles with the order of the Trinity (a biblical family tree with seemingly circular paternity). Is the Father the prime mover? The Trinity?
Perhaps my favorite paradox is the Eucharist. If the body and blood of Christ is truly present in the bread and wine (transubstantiation), what happens when it comes out the other end? Is Jesus still present post-processing? Apparently, this was, historically, an important topic of theology, and the answer, as you might expect, is a little odd.
In the closing section, Wills lays out his final argument: “If Peter and Paul had no need of priests to love and serve God, neither do we” [256].
I believe this is his elevator pitch. He’s not arguing against Catholicism, he’s not even calling for (nor expecting) the abolishment of the priesthood. He’s simply making a case that, spiritually, priests aren’t a necessary conduit to God.
For that, Wills makes a strong and compelling case.
Why Priests?, the latest book from author and historian Garry Wills, is one slippery fish. The provocative title suggests a foundation-shaking argument, but the book is as much biblical history as contemporary critique. At first glance, the title may sound anti-Catholic, but Wills is a Catholic, and even dedicates the book to a priest.
And his argument has nothing to do with church scandals, church politics or past or current leadership.
So slippery is this book that is has two different titles, appearing in most places as Why Priests?: A Failed Tradition and in others as Why Priests?: The Real Meaning of the Eucharist.
I refer to it by the former, as that seems to be most prevalent, but I believe the latter provides a better description of the book. “A Failed Tradition” suggests an accusation or a polemic, but Wills answers the question, “Why priests?” not with slings and arrows, but with scripture and scholarship. It reads more like a history of the priesthood.
And what a curious history indeed. Wills sifts through a Gibraltar-esque mountain of biblical research, interpretation and second and tertiary sources. He explores the familiar (the AAA trinity of theologians: Augustine, Anselm and Aquinas) and the lesser known (Melchizedek). Most of his time is devoted not to priests directly, but to the Eucharist and the New Testament’s Letter to Hebrews.
Overall, this is a fascinating, well-written and -researched book, and I enjoyed the biblical scholarship and moments of philosophy. However, I’m not buying it as an argument against the priesthood. Only in his opening and conclusion does Wills concentrate his energies directly on the issue of priests. The rest is a somewhat tangential flow of information.
I recognize what Wills is doing: He’s searching every back alley and byway for any topic related to the priesthood. But it’s easy for the reader to lose the thread. The subject matter was interesting enough to keep me reading, but at the end of every chapter, I wasn’t quite connecting the material with the thesis.
In the chapter, “A New High Priest,” Wills turns from historian to philosopher, and this is when the book is most compelling. First, he examines the ritual of sacrifice and the logical pitfalls one stumbles upon when making parallels with crucifixion in Letter to Hebrews:
If what Jesus is doing is making out a bequest, the receivers of the bequest are not the receivers of the sacrifice—which is offered to the Father, who can get no benefits from the bequest [147].
Most interesting is the chapter titled, “Who Killed Jesus?” Again, scripture and theology are bound in logical paradoxes. Even Anselm, father of the ontological argument, struggles with the order of the Trinity (a biblical family tree with seemingly circular paternity). Is the Father the prime mover? The Trinity?
Perhaps my favorite paradox is the Eucharist. If the body and blood of Christ is truly present in the bread and wine (transubstantiation), what happens when it comes out the other end? Is Jesus still present post-processing? Apparently, this was, historically, an important topic of theology, and the answer, as you might expect, is a little odd.
In the closing section, Wills lays out his final argument: “If Peter and Paul had no need of priests to love and serve God, neither do we” [256].
I believe this is his elevator pitch. He’s not arguing against Catholicism, he’s not even calling for (nor expecting) the abolishment of the priesthood. He’s simply making a case that, spiritually, priests aren’t a necessary conduit to God.
For that, Wills makes a strong and compelling case.
April 18, 2013
When I first saw this book advertised, I was interested because of the title. It surprised me that Garry Wills was the author, as I had a vague knowledge that he was pretty conservative politically & a Roman Catholic...therefore, not someone with whom I'd probably have a lot in common. I found the book intriguing, not so much for what it said about priests, because he pretty much emphasizes in the first chapter something that should be quite apparent: there was no "Church" or "priests", in the terms we understand today, in the community of Jesus' followers in the first few centuries. What intrigued me more was his development of the main thesis: mainly, that the presence of the "professional priest" today is a direct outgrowth of the Letter to Hebrews, which upon close examination & clarification was really wild & crazy piece of work!
Garry Wills surprised me, frankly. He shows himself to be an incredibly good interpreter of the Greek text, primarily of Scripture generally, but also of non-Christian writings. His translation of many Scriptural texts of which I'm aware is really quite exciting...I'd actually love to see him do a whole translation of the New Testament! I did feel, however, that in the early chapters he occasionally was relying on technical information about priests & liturgy which were somewhat outdated & even somewhat inaccurate. One example, p. 24 where he says: "The fact that the priest's hands were allowed such intimacy with the Host [i.e., the consecrated Host of the Mass] was symbolized by tying his hands during the ordination service. This set the hands apart from mundane service." I remember that in my own ordination service as a Roman priest...but the tying of the hands is only after the bishop anoints & consecrates the ordinand's hands with Sacred Chrism, really more of a technical thing to keep one from getting it all over the vestments, etc...The point is: it's the consecration of the priest's hands, not the tying of them, which is the focal point here.
Wills impressed me with two other things: a wonderful commenatary on the development of the Eucharist and a nice statement of his personal stance vis à vis the Roman Catholic Church.
Garry Wills surprised me, frankly. He shows himself to be an incredibly good interpreter of the Greek text, primarily of Scripture generally, but also of non-Christian writings. His translation of many Scriptural texts of which I'm aware is really quite exciting...I'd actually love to see him do a whole translation of the New Testament! I did feel, however, that in the early chapters he occasionally was relying on technical information about priests & liturgy which were somewhat outdated & even somewhat inaccurate. One example, p. 24 where he says: "The fact that the priest's hands were allowed such intimacy with the Host [i.e., the consecrated Host of the Mass] was symbolized by tying his hands during the ordination service. This set the hands apart from mundane service." I remember that in my own ordination service as a Roman priest...but the tying of the hands is only after the bishop anoints & consecrates the ordinand's hands with Sacred Chrism, really more of a technical thing to keep one from getting it all over the vestments, etc...The point is: it's the consecration of the priest's hands, not the tying of them, which is the focal point here.
Wills impressed me with two other things: a wonderful commenatary on the development of the Eucharist and a nice statement of his personal stance vis à vis the Roman Catholic Church.
November 29, 2021
An interesting and insightful book, which is worth reading. Here's what I found striking/significant from the book:
"...The church was the physical and perceptible phenomenon, the first thing to come to mind when one said "the body of Christ," something Paul had established from the beginning (1 Cor 12.12-14). The Eucharist, by contrast, was the body of Christ as a sign addressed to believers, confirming what they were.
The complete reversal of this relationship, making the Eucharist the true body and the church a weakened "mystical" body of Christ, made itself felt beginning in the eleventh century. There was a reconfiguration of three entities: the glorified (risen) body of Christ in heaven, the earthly continuation of Christ in his body of believers, and the sacramental body in the Eucharist. The risen body and the Eucharist were increasingly identified with each other, and the ecclesial body more and more dissociated from them."
- pg. 58
"Since, for instance, there were no priests in the early church, ordination, which makes a man a priest, could not have existed then. It is held that Jesus instituted the priesthood, but it took time for the church to understand what Peter and Paul never did. Also, when the Last Days were thought to be imminent, there was no provision for forgiveness after the great sin-canceling ablution of baptism. Marriage, as Jesus affirmed it at Cana, was a Jewish institution, not one he changed to a Christian service when he helped the Cana couple feast their guests. Jesus anointed no one with oil, as is required in four sacraments. On the other hand, he did drive out devils, though exorcism is not one of the sacraments, only a "sacramental" (ST 3.67 a3 ad2)."
- pg. 217
"...The church was the physical and perceptible phenomenon, the first thing to come to mind when one said "the body of Christ," something Paul had established from the beginning (1 Cor 12.12-14). The Eucharist, by contrast, was the body of Christ as a sign addressed to believers, confirming what they were.
The complete reversal of this relationship, making the Eucharist the true body and the church a weakened "mystical" body of Christ, made itself felt beginning in the eleventh century. There was a reconfiguration of three entities: the glorified (risen) body of Christ in heaven, the earthly continuation of Christ in his body of believers, and the sacramental body in the Eucharist. The risen body and the Eucharist were increasingly identified with each other, and the ecclesial body more and more dissociated from them."
- pg. 58
"Since, for instance, there were no priests in the early church, ordination, which makes a man a priest, could not have existed then. It is held that Jesus instituted the priesthood, but it took time for the church to understand what Peter and Paul never did. Also, when the Last Days were thought to be imminent, there was no provision for forgiveness after the great sin-canceling ablution of baptism. Marriage, as Jesus affirmed it at Cana, was a Jewish institution, not one he changed to a Christian service when he helped the Cana couple feast their guests. Jesus anointed no one with oil, as is required in four sacraments. On the other hand, he did drive out devils, though exorcism is not one of the sacraments, only a "sacramental" (ST 3.67 a3 ad2)."
- pg. 217
March 24, 2013
Gary Wills asks the question of why Christianity, specifically Roman Catholicism, needs priests in the first place? He would keep “priests” around, but only as church administrators and functionaries, stripping them of their special “sacred” position, and would move toward a more Protestant model. Some might ask if Wills isn’t a disguised Protestant already, but he insists he is a loyal Catholic and doesn’t want to dismantle the church, only make some needed changes. He’s certainly written a provocative book, reminiscent of his earlier PAPAL SIN: STRUCTURE OF DECEIT in which he questions the foundations of that institution and its unwillingness to admit that it is need of change, a polite way of saying it’s been guilty of many coverups.
He argues in this book that early Christianity had no “priests” as such, that its principal activity of the “Jesus movement” was a communal meal in which memories of Christ’s loving actions were shared, “memories that would in time accumulate into the Gospels.” The first early equivalents of “priests” were overseers who were responsible for making meeting arrangements, and these gradually developed into a system of deacons and bishops. But no one was specifically referred to as a “priest” (in the Jewish tradition of priests), and nowhere, Wills says, does Christ refer to his followers as “priests”, nor does he ever call himself that. There were no specific rites that we now associate with the priesthood, “no hearing of confessions, no giving the last rites, no marrying, no confirmation, no presiding at the Mass, no consecrating of the Eucharist.”
Wills thinks the institution of the priesthood developed as a result of asserting power, a monarchal system of elevating individuals and setting them apart from ordinary humans. The clincher in this argument was that only a priest had the God-given power to transform bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ through the “sacrament” of the Eucharist.
Of course, scriptural justification had to be found for this view, and it came from the anonymously- written Letter to the Hebrews in which Wills finds a tortuous and unjustified rationale for Christ being a “priest”, not of the regular Jewish Levite priesthood, but rather a spiritual descendant of Melchizedek, an obscure Old Testament figure, and as such he became a sacrificial victim, placating an angry God for the sins of man. Hence the terminology of the “sacrifice” of the mass.
Much of the explanation of the mass, and how bread and wine can be transformed into Christ comes from Thomas Aquinas’ theories of “transubstantiation” which answers the common sense objection how of this is possible. Bread and wine still exist as in their appearance , but their substance has been changed. All of this important as it makes one crucial activity of priests as having the highest importance; they become indispensable.
Wills much prefers Augustine’s theology of the Eucharist. It’s a gathering of many individuals who are like the grains that go into making bread, and the bread becomes a symbol of the union of many members in the solidarity of Christ. Jesus is no longer a sacrificial victim, but an instrument that results in peace and harmony. The Last Supper in this view is an anticipation of a final “banquet” with a spiritual Father. It looks forward in anticipation, not back toward past actions.
Is this of much interest to anyone other than Catholics? I think it is. It demonstrates to me that the ideas and actions that religions reveal are symbolic in nature and always open to further interpretation. Of course, if you’re of a traditionalist bent, you’d argue that this kind of thinking leads to endless proliferation, resulting in thousands of sects all calling themselves “Christian” and believing an incredible variety of things. A danger to be sure, but Wills is concerned with the other extreme that rigidly locks in ideas that need a few fresh winds of scrutiny to blow through them.
February 27, 2013
This book was over my head. I don't have a sufficient background in theology or bible history to understand most of the arguments he was making. I suspect this comment would frustrate him because he clearly went to great lengths to make this book "user-friendly". And to a large extent, he was successful. I finished the book and learned a lot. But I could not recapitulate his major discussion points. I was there. I am glad I read it. It addressed questions that have perplexed me for years.
He is a life-long Catholic who does not believe in the priests (or bishops, popes...) and some aspects of the sacraments. I grew up protestant and do not understand the clerical aspect of the Catholic church. I married a devout cradle-Catholic woman and I am a regular member of the Church choir. I am styled as a practicing non-Catholic. The roles of priests, transubstantiation and many of the social policies of the papacy and bishopric kept me from wanting to sign on for over 30 years. But I have met some amazing, thoughtful and wonderful people in the congregation who often share some of my concerns but don’t let that get in the way of participating in a beautiful community. They are amazing and, in part, a product of the Catholic church.
Gary Wills is amazing. His theses are that Jesus did not establish a priesthood with series of religious sacraments; the last supper was not the introduction of transubstantiation; among the seven Catholic sacraments, baptism clearly does not require the intervention of priests. He argues that these practices do not appear in the Gospels but rather the priesthood is a consequence of the Book of Hebrews. In an appendix he takes issue with the translation and produces what he considers a more accurate translation at the end of the book. He notes discrepancies between practices and actions described in the Gospels and other books with those introduced in Hebrews.
Interesting. So why is he Catholic? (He wrote a book over ten years ago of that title.) Here, he states that he believes in the central and essential aspects of Catholicism. However, priests are not part of that. In the book, he makes a strong argument for Ecumenical activities, noting the common origins and beliefs shared with Protestants, Jews and those of other religions. For whatever reasons the walls of pomp and clericalism were constructed over 1000 years ago, they are irrelevant.
He is a life-long Catholic who does not believe in the priests (or bishops, popes...) and some aspects of the sacraments. I grew up protestant and do not understand the clerical aspect of the Catholic church. I married a devout cradle-Catholic woman and I am a regular member of the Church choir. I am styled as a practicing non-Catholic. The roles of priests, transubstantiation and many of the social policies of the papacy and bishopric kept me from wanting to sign on for over 30 years. But I have met some amazing, thoughtful and wonderful people in the congregation who often share some of my concerns but don’t let that get in the way of participating in a beautiful community. They are amazing and, in part, a product of the Catholic church.
Gary Wills is amazing. His theses are that Jesus did not establish a priesthood with series of religious sacraments; the last supper was not the introduction of transubstantiation; among the seven Catholic sacraments, baptism clearly does not require the intervention of priests. He argues that these practices do not appear in the Gospels but rather the priesthood is a consequence of the Book of Hebrews. In an appendix he takes issue with the translation and produces what he considers a more accurate translation at the end of the book. He notes discrepancies between practices and actions described in the Gospels and other books with those introduced in Hebrews.
Interesting. So why is he Catholic? (He wrote a book over ten years ago of that title.) Here, he states that he believes in the central and essential aspects of Catholicism. However, priests are not part of that. In the book, he makes a strong argument for Ecumenical activities, noting the common origins and beliefs shared with Protestants, Jews and those of other religions. For whatever reasons the walls of pomp and clericalism were constructed over 1000 years ago, they are irrelevant.
March 9, 2013
Garry Wills' thesis is that there is no New Testament support for a priesthood in Christianity except in the Letter to the Hebrews. Wills provides his own translation of this Letter and analyzes commentaries by 8 to 10 Bible scholars to show why the Letter to the Hebrews is so out of step with everything else in the New Testament. He also concludes that at the "Last Supper" Jesus did not "ordain" his apostles, nor did he institute a Eucharistic meal with transubstantiation.
While Wills lays out his points well, there's no denying this is an academic book. It is not an easy read, but even the non-scholar can follow along with Wills' arguments.
I understand Wills' point, but I'm not yet ready to say I agree with him. I'm sure many others would call this book heresy.
It's been interesting to read this as we approach the Papal Conclave of 2013.
While Wills lays out his points well, there's no denying this is an academic book. It is not an easy read, but even the non-scholar can follow along with Wills' arguments.
I understand Wills' point, but I'm not yet ready to say I agree with him. I'm sure many others would call this book heresy.
It's been interesting to read this as we approach the Papal Conclave of 2013.
August 20, 2013
Provocative take on the Roman Church's exaltation of a cultic priesthood whose only scriptural basis is found in the Letter to the Hebrews. Wills suggests that the Letter was intended as solace to earl Christians who missed the certainty of the Mosaic Law, and offers them the fulfillment of the Jewish priesthood in the human sacrifice of Jesus. That notion was used in turn to "fetishize" the person with the "power" to repeat that sacrifice, namely the priest.
While he doesn't seek the abolition of the priesthood, he clearly believes that Catholicism would be better without it.
While he doesn't seek the abolition of the priesthood, he clearly believes that Catholicism would be better without it.
November 21, 2020
Why Priests? - A Failed Tradition by Garry Wills.
.
I understood very little. I could not follow most of the writings. However, it is not because of the author. The book contains a lot of references on ancient Christian texts and stories I am not familiar with. Also, lots of Biblical names and tales. I think if one is equipped with sufficient knowledge on Christianity - Catholicism in particular - one would find the book very enjoyable.
.
I think I will revisit the book in the future. Maybe. Once I am more knowledgable, I feel like I would be able to follow the book better.
.
I understood very little. I could not follow most of the writings. However, it is not because of the author. The book contains a lot of references on ancient Christian texts and stories I am not familiar with. Also, lots of Biblical names and tales. I think if one is equipped with sufficient knowledge on Christianity - Catholicism in particular - one would find the book very enjoyable.
.
I think I will revisit the book in the future. Maybe. Once I am more knowledgable, I feel like I would be able to follow the book better.
April 11, 2013
I saw Garry Wills interviewed by Stephen Colbert Feb.12, sounded interesting so I ordered from the library.
March 19, 2013
Wills affirms my conviction that we need no intermediary to commune with God and that those who do worship through intermediaries or sacraments subject themselves to manipulation by men.
August 13, 2016
More esoteric than I expected - it reminded me of the books I index. Super interesting, but not for the casual reader who isn't prepared to delve into scriptural exegesis.
July 28, 2019
Want to know how NOT to write a book? Read this one. So painful to get through. It cat-fishes you, knowing when you see a title such as "A failed tradition", you are looking for juicy details related to the history of the priesthood. But instead, you get this drawn out theological explanation of how the priesthood came to be, etc.
The first two chapters managed to captivate me, but after that, it was just quote after quote after quote. I say, if you took all the quotes out of the book, the book would fall to less than 130 pages. The constant return to quotes made it very hard to keep track with the premise, which was loosely tied to what was presented in the book.
The writing is fine, but the subject matter is so over the place, you barely gain any insight, (especially if you are just a casual reader looking for some new knowledge). And yes, there were many interesting details, but it was so buried in theology, and academic writing, that when you finally found it, you were so bored from the previous style of writing that you would have to re-read it, and even then it wasn't as momentous.
If you are a man or woman or (unspecified gender here) passionate about the catholic religion, this book would work well, as you would have already been acquainted with some of the terms, and history, but for a person like myself, no. Not at all. I only finished the book because I wanted to prove to myself that I had enough willpower to finish something that was so painful to read.
As an academic and theological read, I suppose this would be a hit. But if it is going to be such, please be up-front and lay it out in the title. Don't lure people in with titles like this and deliver the complete opposite of what your first chapter, and title implies.
Its dishonest and last time I checked, that was something that was frowned upon in Christianity, no?
The first two chapters managed to captivate me, but after that, it was just quote after quote after quote. I say, if you took all the quotes out of the book, the book would fall to less than 130 pages. The constant return to quotes made it very hard to keep track with the premise, which was loosely tied to what was presented in the book.
The writing is fine, but the subject matter is so over the place, you barely gain any insight, (especially if you are just a casual reader looking for some new knowledge). And yes, there were many interesting details, but it was so buried in theology, and academic writing, that when you finally found it, you were so bored from the previous style of writing that you would have to re-read it, and even then it wasn't as momentous.
If you are a man or woman or (unspecified gender here) passionate about the catholic religion, this book would work well, as you would have already been acquainted with some of the terms, and history, but for a person like myself, no. Not at all. I only finished the book because I wanted to prove to myself that I had enough willpower to finish something that was so painful to read.
As an academic and theological read, I suppose this would be a hit. But if it is going to be such, please be up-front and lay it out in the title. Don't lure people in with titles like this and deliver the complete opposite of what your first chapter, and title implies.
Its dishonest and last time I checked, that was something that was frowned upon in Christianity, no?
December 31, 2019
This book was a bit of a roller coaster. I began very interested in Wills' indictment of the priesthood. Then got a bit confused when he seemed like he was veering far away from his thesis. I got very annoyed during his diatribe about the book of Hebrews. Then I was blown away when he brought everything together at the end of the book. Finally, I was perplexed by the last line, "There is one God, and Jesus is one of his prophets, and I am one of his millions of followers." Was that a clever way of denying Jesus' divinity? Maybe I am reading too much into the line.
The strength of this book is the discussion of the Augustinian theory of the Eucharist. Honestly, I wish he would have camped out in that area longer. What a fascinating look at the Lord's Supper, not as a sacrifice, but a meal, a remembrance that brings the many followers of Jesus Christ together to become more like himself. (Where that leaves things like physical presence, spiritual presences, etc. is still something I need to reflect upon.) Another big strength (and perhaps the greatest thing from this book) is the bibliography. I was constantly writing down books to add to GoodReads at a later time.
I was a bit put off by his seeming hatred of Hebrews. I will confess that I did not read the appendix on translating the book. I did not want to dive into the worst part of the book again.
Overall, the book was fascinating to read. I will be looking into more works by Wills.
The strength of this book is the discussion of the Augustinian theory of the Eucharist. Honestly, I wish he would have camped out in that area longer. What a fascinating look at the Lord's Supper, not as a sacrifice, but a meal, a remembrance that brings the many followers of Jesus Christ together to become more like himself. (Where that leaves things like physical presence, spiritual presences, etc. is still something I need to reflect upon.) Another big strength (and perhaps the greatest thing from this book) is the bibliography. I was constantly writing down books to add to GoodReads at a later time.
I was a bit put off by his seeming hatred of Hebrews. I will confess that I did not read the appendix on translating the book. I did not want to dive into the worst part of the book again.
Overall, the book was fascinating to read. I will be looking into more works by Wills.
October 7, 2024
Pulitzer Prize-winning author Gary Wills offers a bold critique of the Catholic priesthood in this book, arguing that it is a "failed tradition" with no basis in Jesus' teachings. Wills asserts that Jesus never claimed to be a priest, never performed priestly acts, and warned his followers against elevating themselves above others. The idea that priests can transform bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ emerged in the 11th century, and Wills questions this belief with challenging scenarios, such as what happens to the consecrated elements after consumption.
Wills also critiques the New Testament book of Hebrews, the only scripture that describes Jesus as a priest, calling it "idiosyncratic" and not originally part of Christian theology. He argues that the concept of Christ's death as a sacrifice for humanity's sins is a later addition, incompatible with the idea of a non-violent God.
Wills also debunks the sacramental system, noting that aside from baptism, none of the seven sacraments are mentioned in the New Testament. His work will provoke conservative readers but offers a fascinating re-examination of Catholic traditions for those open to questioning established dogma.
Wills also critiques the New Testament book of Hebrews, the only scripture that describes Jesus as a priest, calling it "idiosyncratic" and not originally part of Christian theology. He argues that the concept of Christ's death as a sacrifice for humanity's sins is a later addition, incompatible with the idea of a non-violent God.
Wills also debunks the sacramental system, noting that aside from baptism, none of the seven sacraments are mentioned in the New Testament. His work will provoke conservative readers but offers a fascinating re-examination of Catholic traditions for those open to questioning established dogma.
December 27, 2022
omg what on EARTH. prefacing this review by saying that i understood maybe like 10% of this book.
based off the title and book jacket, i thought this book was going to be making a case against the priesthood by examining (a lack of) historical precedence starting w/ the early church, but instead it was more about, like, theology lmao. so if you want an in-depth examination of the Letter to the Hebrews and the mystery of the Eucharist, Garry's your guy!!
anyways, i want to apologize to Garry for leaving this review bc here i am trying to review something i didn't understand HAHA. giving it 3 stars bc ultimately it was interesting and well-researched. and should i say, spicy?? but damn i feel like i need to take a theology class. or at the very least bring this book to my priest friends and make them explain it to me. maybe that's why we SHOULD have priests after all. so they can explain this book. thank you.
based off the title and book jacket, i thought this book was going to be making a case against the priesthood by examining (a lack of) historical precedence starting w/ the early church, but instead it was more about, like, theology lmao. so if you want an in-depth examination of the Letter to the Hebrews and the mystery of the Eucharist, Garry's your guy!!
anyways, i want to apologize to Garry for leaving this review bc here i am trying to review something i didn't understand HAHA. giving it 3 stars bc ultimately it was interesting and well-researched. and should i say, spicy?? but damn i feel like i need to take a theology class. or at the very least bring this book to my priest friends and make them explain it to me. maybe that's why we SHOULD have priests after all. so they can explain this book. thank you.
November 17, 2024
Enjoyed this read. Clearly broke down key different but connected Church teachings, provided historical and textual context, and weighed arguments from earlier theologians.
January 21, 2022
As many reviews here state, this isn't exactly an easy book for the casual reader but, also said by many here is that Wills provides the careful scholarship – chapter and verse – needed to help the reader understand why Christianity was never supposed to have priests, and very much does not need them.
(Just a very few among the many proofs Wills offers: "Do not address any man on earth as father, since you have only one Father, and he is in heaven" (Matt 23:9) to Christ 'expressly and repeatedly' forbidding his disciples to rank themselves above others (Matt 18:4-5, 23:8-10; Mark 9:35; Luke 14:11).)
The writer also does important work in (briefly) addressing how the priesthood can and has changed many men for the horrific worst – including speaking of the abuses of children by priests – though that is definitely not the focus of the book, and is brought up in short, infrequent paragraphs.
Wills himself is Catholic, and addresses why he's remained so in the final chapter. It's this, his scholarship, and his clear writing that make me want to seek out next his "Why I Am a Catholic."
(Just a very few among the many proofs Wills offers: "Do not address any man on earth as father, since you have only one Father, and he is in heaven" (Matt 23:9) to Christ 'expressly and repeatedly' forbidding his disciples to rank themselves above others (Matt 18:4-5, 23:8-10; Mark 9:35; Luke 14:11).)
The writer also does important work in (briefly) addressing how the priesthood can and has changed many men for the horrific worst – including speaking of the abuses of children by priests – though that is definitely not the focus of the book, and is brought up in short, infrequent paragraphs.
Wills himself is Catholic, and addresses why he's remained so in the final chapter. It's this, his scholarship, and his clear writing that make me want to seek out next his "Why I Am a Catholic."
July 19, 2022
a big win for all the melchizedek-heads out there
November 17, 2013
Garry Wills once again takes on the Catholic Church, of which he is a life-long member (nearly eighty years now). This is an important point to remember, because many traditional Catholics—at least those aware of his many works on the Church—are prepared to drum him out. Wills includes a list of what he believes in, from God to the Communion of Saints, but some of trappings of the faith held by others don't make the cut. Suggesting that priests are unnecessary and not a part of the earliest Church will certainly not endear him to those who hold a strong attachment to this institution.
It's somewhat ironic that Wills should write a book of this title. As he reminds us, not only is he a devout Catholic, he studied for the priesthood (Jesuit), he dedicates the book to a priest, and he counts many priests among this friends and confidants. Indeed, Wills doesn't expect priests or the pope (about whom he's written as well in Why I Am a Catholic) to go away despite his withering criticism of the hierarchy. This criticisms include the betrayal of the faithful in many of the sex abuse scandals or the arguments (quite separate) set forth in this book. But in this book, the arguments—and its importance—goes well beyond the office of the priesthood.
Wills argues that priests—at least during the time of the writings of the New Testament—didn't exist. Many offices receive mention by Paul and other writers, but only one, the author of The Letter to the Hebrews, really pushes the idea of a priesthood. Wills argues that Hebrews is an anomaly in the New Testament corpus, at once more sophisticated in its writing style and more confusing in its theology. Hebrews gives us the argument that Jesus acted as a priest in the tradition of Melchizedek (a fleeting figure in the book of Genesis) and that Christ's death served as a sacrificial offering to the Father. Neither of these two contentions receives support from other New Testament writings, and both are central to establishing the priestly office within Christianity and to establishing the Eucharist as a sacrificial offering.
At the time of St. Thomas Aquinas in the High Middle Ages, the idea of transubstantiation become the norm for Catholic theology, using Aristotle's metaphysics as a tool for establishing the concept. This overturned an earlier Augustinian tradition that saw the Eucharist as a remembrance and sharing and not as a sacrifice. Wills, an admirer, biographer, and translator of Augustine, argues convincingly that the Hebrews tradition that created the priestly office misleads and misinterprets the tradition and sets up a concept of the Eucharist that requires priests.
Wills not only argues that the priestly tradition via Melchizedek isn't well supported, but the whole idea of Christ's death as a sacrifice to the Father is bad theology. Wills asks "Who Killed Jesus?" and he finds the usual arguments unconvincing, including the widely accepted argument of Anselm that the perfection of God required a supreme (perfect) sacrifice of the Son. The better question (and one implicit in Wills' question of "Who killed Jesus?") is "Why did Jesus have to die as he did?". In this, we can compare Wills argument that Jesus died to share in our humanity to Mark Johnston's argument that Jesus died as he did to break the spell of false sacrifices. Both authors take important points from Rene Girard's understanding of Christ's death as a break from false sacrifices.
Wills concludes that priests, if believers see the Eucharist as something other than transubstantiation based on Aristotelian metaphysics and more as a remembrance of Christ with the believers and among them, are not so important or necessary. . The Eucharist becomes a remembrance and not a sacrifice. And with no sacrifice, no need for a priest to conduct the sacrifice.
In a time when the number of priests is dwindling and the faithful cannot assume that a priest will be readily available to conduct priestly offices, it provides some serious points for consideration. Even if one doesn't accept all of Wills' arguments, his scholarship and concern for detail are very impressive. He also cares deeply about the Church and the world. For these reasons, his book requires some serious consideration by all Christians and those affected by Christianity.
It's somewhat ironic that Wills should write a book of this title. As he reminds us, not only is he a devout Catholic, he studied for the priesthood (Jesuit), he dedicates the book to a priest, and he counts many priests among this friends and confidants. Indeed, Wills doesn't expect priests or the pope (about whom he's written as well in Why I Am a Catholic) to go away despite his withering criticism of the hierarchy. This criticisms include the betrayal of the faithful in many of the sex abuse scandals or the arguments (quite separate) set forth in this book. But in this book, the arguments—and its importance—goes well beyond the office of the priesthood.
Wills argues that priests—at least during the time of the writings of the New Testament—didn't exist. Many offices receive mention by Paul and other writers, but only one, the author of The Letter to the Hebrews, really pushes the idea of a priesthood. Wills argues that Hebrews is an anomaly in the New Testament corpus, at once more sophisticated in its writing style and more confusing in its theology. Hebrews gives us the argument that Jesus acted as a priest in the tradition of Melchizedek (a fleeting figure in the book of Genesis) and that Christ's death served as a sacrificial offering to the Father. Neither of these two contentions receives support from other New Testament writings, and both are central to establishing the priestly office within Christianity and to establishing the Eucharist as a sacrificial offering.
At the time of St. Thomas Aquinas in the High Middle Ages, the idea of transubstantiation become the norm for Catholic theology, using Aristotle's metaphysics as a tool for establishing the concept. This overturned an earlier Augustinian tradition that saw the Eucharist as a remembrance and sharing and not as a sacrifice. Wills, an admirer, biographer, and translator of Augustine, argues convincingly that the Hebrews tradition that created the priestly office misleads and misinterprets the tradition and sets up a concept of the Eucharist that requires priests.
Wills not only argues that the priestly tradition via Melchizedek isn't well supported, but the whole idea of Christ's death as a sacrifice to the Father is bad theology. Wills asks "Who Killed Jesus?" and he finds the usual arguments unconvincing, including the widely accepted argument of Anselm that the perfection of God required a supreme (perfect) sacrifice of the Son. The better question (and one implicit in Wills' question of "Who killed Jesus?") is "Why did Jesus have to die as he did?". In this, we can compare Wills argument that Jesus died to share in our humanity to Mark Johnston's argument that Jesus died as he did to break the spell of false sacrifices. Both authors take important points from Rene Girard's understanding of Christ's death as a break from false sacrifices.
Wills concludes that priests, if believers see the Eucharist as something other than transubstantiation based on Aristotelian metaphysics and more as a remembrance of Christ with the believers and among them, are not so important or necessary. . The Eucharist becomes a remembrance and not a sacrifice. And with no sacrifice, no need for a priest to conduct the sacrifice.
In a time when the number of priests is dwindling and the faithful cannot assume that a priest will be readily available to conduct priestly offices, it provides some serious points for consideration. Even if one doesn't accept all of Wills' arguments, his scholarship and concern for detail are very impressive. He also cares deeply about the Church and the world. For these reasons, his book requires some serious consideration by all Christians and those affected by Christianity.
April 23, 2015
This book was quite different from what I had expected. To being with, it is DEEPLY steeped in theology – to the point of discussing the finer points of Greek participles that make translations of biblical texts difficult. Similarly, though the author starts with an argument as to why priests are unnecessary for the faithful worship of god and only serve to put a distance between the worshippers and god, he then veers into a deep theological argument that hinges on the lack of justification for such a powerful figure in the Catholic liturgy. Although he does make a strong case for how the original sources of Christian doctrine were misinterpreted to arrive to the idea of priests and uses bona fide theologians towards this purpose (giving me the first justification for their profession), the book started to seem dedicated almost entirely to theologians. The social aspect of the problems with priests is lost for almost all the book and is recovered only at its very end. This seem to indicate to me that the author’s thought was that “there is no undisputed doctrine that says that we have to have priests (and bishops, cardinals, etc.)” rather than “there shouldn’t BE priests (whether or not it is doctrinally justified)”. Similarly, I was disappointed to find a lack of discussion of the social problems of the priesthood, i.e., the no woman rule, the artificial and capricious nature of celibacy, etc. Consequently his solution was not the broadening of the priestly ranks (by including women, allowing priests to marry, etc.), nor an abolition of the priesthood, but rather a dignified acceptance that their role was unwarranted and waiting for it to disappear by itself (as all trends seem to point to). However, in what I thought was a brilliant answer to the question that plagued me through the book, i.e., “why don’t you [the author] just become a protestant?”, he answered that real Christians wouldn’t let those titles be divisive any more than the original Christians were divided by celebrating things slightly differently in Corinth than in Antioch. Overall the book was still interesting but not at all what I thought should be tackled about the problems with priests.
March 2, 2016
Overall, this book was somewhat of a disappointment to me, although I acknowledge that disappointment was at least in part my own fault. I expected what Wills delivered in the first 40 and last 40 pages of this 259 page book. In the first segments he gives us a cogent summary of how Christians worshiped, sans priests, in the early church and how unnecessarily hierarchical the church became once priests were determined to be essential to the process of salvation, a subject on which he elaborates in the later chapter on "Priestly Imperialism". Likewise, his final chapter on what he believes to be the real meaning of the Last Supper was very thought-provoking.
What I didn't expect was what the meat of the book was all about, which was a series of dissections of New and Old Testament passages used over time (in ways that were astonishingly convoluted) to establish the sacraments and to build the monstrous bureaucracy that is the Catholic Church of today. I felt this entire body of the book was written for readers with a foundation in theology far beyond my limited experience. As such, it was often over my head and just didn't hold my interest.
What I expected and didn't get to any real degree was what was implied in the title of the book, "Why Priests? A Failed Tradition". I had every reason to expect at least some discourse on how, when and why the priesthood has 'failed' through the ages.
Had I known what was coming and simply read the first and last sections of the book in an evening, I would have saved myself some time and a great deal of frustration.
What I didn't expect was what the meat of the book was all about, which was a series of dissections of New and Old Testament passages used over time (in ways that were astonishingly convoluted) to establish the sacraments and to build the monstrous bureaucracy that is the Catholic Church of today. I felt this entire body of the book was written for readers with a foundation in theology far beyond my limited experience. As such, it was often over my head and just didn't hold my interest.
What I expected and didn't get to any real degree was what was implied in the title of the book, "Why Priests? A Failed Tradition". I had every reason to expect at least some discourse on how, when and why the priesthood has 'failed' through the ages.
Had I known what was coming and simply read the first and last sections of the book in an evening, I would have saved myself some time and a great deal of frustration.
February 8, 2014
Why Priests- a Failed Institution Intriguing title, no? I've read and re-read this book (or from it) several times. I appreciate Garry Wills' methodical research into numerous aspects of my faith and the role priests have, for a long time, played in it. It is an eye-opener, and I can't emphasize that enough. I used the word "played" in an earlier sentence; I might have said "controlled" instead.
I guess it has fascinated me for years how, for example, throngs of people-even whole nations followed (perhaps, adored)leaders like Adolph Hitler, Kim Il-sung, Jim Jones. How could they be sucked in and supportive despite all? Priests of all religions have held an even tighter, more influential grasp and and have certainly been held in the highest esteem for ages. They are part of a believers life from baptism through to one's last rites. It could be easily posited that they were part of the conception itself when it comes to the hierarchically established regulation regarding procreation.
Author Garry Wills, himself a former candidate for the priesthood, stepped back in this book to look at the profession and priestly power in a different light. I was especially interested in the chapters regarding the Sacraments. Why he feels it is a _failed institution_, you'll have to read it for yourself to find out. I will say that this book is not for those who blindly follow. Question, ponder, and then act on what you make of that; I think that's a healthy and proper attitude to take. And so does this author.
I guess it has fascinated me for years how, for example, throngs of people-even whole nations followed (perhaps, adored)leaders like Adolph Hitler, Kim Il-sung, Jim Jones. How could they be sucked in and supportive despite all? Priests of all religions have held an even tighter, more influential grasp and and have certainly been held in the highest esteem for ages. They are part of a believers life from baptism through to one's last rites. It could be easily posited that they were part of the conception itself when it comes to the hierarchically established regulation regarding procreation.
Author Garry Wills, himself a former candidate for the priesthood, stepped back in this book to look at the profession and priestly power in a different light. I was especially interested in the chapters regarding the Sacraments. Why he feels it is a _failed institution_, you'll have to read it for yourself to find out. I will say that this book is not for those who blindly follow. Question, ponder, and then act on what you make of that; I think that's a healthy and proper attitude to take. And so does this author.
April 14, 2015
Garry Wills outstanding 2013 book "Why Priests?:A Failed Tradition" could have easily been entitled "Why Transubstantiation?" or perhaps "Why 'Letter to Hebrews?'" In this well-researched book, Wills discussed why was the "Letter to Hebrews" was made a part of the New Testament despite its many flaws. He also discusses how priests eventually became a Christian tradition despite Jesus of Nazareth and his disciples seemingly personal disdain for the priestly class of his time. As with most of Wills's books on religion and the church, it is well researched and convincing in its argument. The author is an excellent Greek and Latin scholar, and he provides his own translation of the "Letter to Hebrews." He also is a passionate student of Saint Augustine. So. he not surprisingly looks to the Bishop of Hippo for better lines of theological thought. Wills also thought it was important to explain why he remains a practicing Roman Catholic if he didn't believe in the papacy, the priesthood and other church traditions like transubstantiation. Basically his relation with God is centered around the Apostle and Nicene creeds-something that all Catholics say that they believe.
Why Priests?
was a book that I wanted to read during the 2015 Lenten season. I'm glad that I did. I don't alway don't agree with the author, but I'm always enjoy meditating on his words. Enjoy.
October 27, 2013
Having grown up in the Anabaptist, "priesthood of all believers" tradition, I did not really need a book of theology to tell me that the priesthood is unbiblical. However, I enjoyed reading this book anyway. What I appreciated were the sections on the Eucharist/Lord's Supper and the atonement. Many Christians (and not only Catholics) are taught the "Jesus as sacrifice" view of the atonement as if it is the only one, but as Garry Wills aptly demonstrates, this is not the case, and never has been. There are other ways to understand how Jesus' death reconciles human beings to God. Wills seems to favour recapitulation theory (Jesus as the new Adam), which is not quite where I come out, but interesting nonetheless. What I liked most was Wills' view of the Lord's Supper as a meal shared by people who understand themselves in a metaphorical sense to be "the body of Christ."
Unfortunately, Wills refuses to take his argument to his logical conclusion, and does not call for the abolition of the priesthood in the Catholic Church (of which he is a member). In my experience, this is typical of many biblical scholars who enjoy making arguments, but don't really want anything to change. Or else, maybe Wills is a realist, and knows that the abolition of the priesthood won't happen, no matter how many biblical scholars call for it.
Unfortunately, Wills refuses to take his argument to his logical conclusion, and does not call for the abolition of the priesthood in the Catholic Church (of which he is a member). In my experience, this is typical of many biblical scholars who enjoy making arguments, but don't really want anything to change. Or else, maybe Wills is a realist, and knows that the abolition of the priesthood won't happen, no matter how many biblical scholars call for it.
September 20, 2013
I recently read Harvey Cox's The Future of Faith, and I'd almost guess that Garry Wills shared an office with him as they wrote their two books, so completely do they dovetail. This one points out that "priest" is not a good word in the New Testament, that the word almost always denotes an enemy of Jesus, and that Jesus plays the same role antagonistic to priests that the prophets do in the Hebrew scriptures. Priests always seem to be legalistic promoters of empty ritual, maintaining their importance and their own empty roles in the face of prophetic calls to renew true faith in God. He goes on to recount how, in the Christian church, priests gradually (very gradually) arrogated to themselves powers (the seven sacraments, especially the turning of bread and wine into Christ and blood) which have no warrant at all in scripture. He then examines the one place where Jesus himself is called a priest (the letter to the Hebrews) and vigorously argues with its theology. In an Envoy he summarizes why he nevertheless remains a Catholic, in terms almost entirely in agreement with Harvey Cox's views. A good book for those interested in the subject, but fairly dry and detailed, and not for the casual reader.
December 2, 2013
Wills is a Catholic writer who can take fairly complicated material that has been explored at great length and make it both understandable and fresh. I particularly enjoyed What Jesus Meant, as much for Wills's clarity of argument as for the joy he brings to his study of it. In Why Priests? Wills is deconstructing a tradition, not a sacred text, and that is a bit less interesting territory to me. He does go into great length exploring the scriptural basis for the priesthood (in particular the Epistle to the Hebrews) as well as the historical evolution of the priesthood and theology surrounding priests. And he comes to a conclusion that makes sense to me, though it is not at all related to current Catholic doctrine. I agree with him that the special and privileged role priests have in today's Catholic Church is unwarranted, unnecessary, and perhaps unhelpful. But the academic trail that Wills took to get there was not particularly enjoyable. While I love textual analysis and very much appreciate Wills's original translations, the historical study was too dry for me to really enjoy. This is probably a matter of taste, and of course you may be happier with this strain of his writing than others. But I will turn back to What Paul Meant the next time I want a Wills book.
April 18, 2013
In his book, Why Priests?, Garry Wills is not attacking the faith of the Catholic Church as contained in the Creed; instead, he disputes the need for a hierarchical priesthood based on sacrifice which, he claims, was never part of the early church. The book contains lots of interesting historical information beyond the practices of the early church, such as the purposes of clerical vestments, a who’s who of Jewish factions in Jesus’s time, and how each of the sacraments developed over the centuries, but the book’s greatest triumph, for me, was that it kept me turning to the Bible for confirmation of what was said. I read the Letter to Hebrews, which he quotes from throughout (even including a new translation,) in its entirety for the first time. Wills questions the need for an intermediary to offer sacrifice on our behalf, to propitiate a displeased God; the line that resonated with me the most was “God initiates the salvation of man to express the Father’s love, not a punitive deflecting of the Father’s anger.”
March 27, 2013
Excellent and important examination of the origin and legitimization of the priesthood in early (and priestless) Christianity. The book is excellently researched and thought provoking but is more of an in depth examination of scriptures rather than a complete historical/social profile. If you've read Wills' earlier books, What Jesus Meant and What Paul Meant, you'll see how this latest is really a sequel to those two. It's full of amazing information and I've found myself referring back to it often over the past month since completing it. You might be surprised to hear such Protestant sentiments from a faithful and devout Roman Catholic like Wills, but for me - I just found it encouraging in general and a much needed and serious challenge to reexamine and reevaluate our religious structures from a standpoint that takes scripture seriously. I do found it left me wanting more from a later historical standpoint (after the 2nd century) and maybe more discussion on what it all means to us and our church structures today (from his standpoint.)
May 24, 2013
Wills makes a thoughtful, thorough case against any Biblical or theological basis for the centrality of the priesthood to Christian life. He's not arguing against the priesthood wholesale, just the "magic hands" (cheap term) role. This book is written about the Roman Catholic priesthood, but is also be very relevant to Anglicans and Orthodox Christians. I appreciated his historical, theological, and Biblical take on priesthood - reminding us that most of the Old Testament is anti-priest, so is Jesus, and Paul really mentions nothing about priests. He spends a LOT of time analyzing the book of Hebrews, which gets a little tedious, but because Melchizedek and Hebrews have been at the heart of defining the priesthood, it's an important task.
He posits that the true theology of the Lord's Supper should be an eschatological feast and ritual of becoming the Body of Christ, as a community, rather than a ritual sacrifice.
This book isn't for casual readers. But a valuable one for anyone, in any denomination, rethinking the role of priests, pastors, and ordination in church life.
He posits that the true theology of the Lord's Supper should be an eschatological feast and ritual of becoming the Body of Christ, as a community, rather than a ritual sacrifice.
This book isn't for casual readers. But a valuable one for anyone, in any denomination, rethinking the role of priests, pastors, and ordination in church life.
June 10, 2013
The author argues that there is no worthy biblical support for the ideas that Scripture refers to Jesus as a priest or that his church should be run by priests. In fact, he says, Jesus, like other prophets, was anti-priest--priests in effect hijack a religion. There is also no good grounds to believe that, at the Last Supper, Jesus intended to initiate what we now know as Eucharist, and the author debunks the idea of transubstantiation. Eliminating Eucharist and transubstantiation eliminates the only real support for having priests--i.e., that only they can change bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus. The author's argument is based solely on scripture; he does not address the Church's claim that its interpretation of scriptures over two thousand years is on an equal footing with the words of scripture itself.
The author, a professor of history emeritus at Northwestern University, considers himself a Catholic. To eliminate priests, popss, and the Eucharist is not to eliminate anything of the essence of true Catholicism.
The author, a professor of history emeritus at Northwestern University, considers himself a Catholic. To eliminate priests, popss, and the Eucharist is not to eliminate anything of the essence of true Catholicism.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 78 reviews