Well said Mr. Shea. I can’t think of anything more pointless than trying to outsmart the first person of the Holy Trinity in the “where” (Mt 24:23) and the “when” (Mt 24.36) of his glorious second coming. The Eucharist is the seal of the covenant. God has made the heart of man his abode.

Dear Mark, I do not disagree w/ you regarding the theology of the Eucharist.  And I do accept what Holy Mother Church teaches about the priesthood of Christ and Eucharist.  However, my understanding of Willis concerns his questioning of the development of the ministerial priesthood in the Church.  Not to put try to explain his argument, but my sense is that he is saying JESUS is high priest, sacrifice, Eucharist.  However, presbyters became “priests” and “order of ministerial priests” over time and that was not intended.  Essentially in the new covenant ALL are priests.  Does Hebrews say there should be a new testament order of human, ministerial priests like the Levites, separate from God’s people?  That they alone possess a unique power to consecrate.  In Jesus’ time “priests” were sadducces, right?  And no Apostle or other minister would have claimed that “title”.  They weren’t running around saying “I’m a priest offering sacrifices” during Agape and Lord’s Day celebration.  I think that is what Willis is trying to argue.  That it developed over time into orders and that it went too far.  I am truly interested in your scholarly response to Willis since I am personally challenged by both arguments in my faith.

Dear Mark.  I truly respect Catholic Church teaching and your scholarly approach to faith.  I am writing because I find some merit to Willis’ argument, and I value your input regarding my own faith.  One aspect of Willis argument (Eucharist) does not bother me.  But I struggle with the priesthood.  Hebrews seems to me to be saying Christ is high priest.  And Scripture seems to point in several places, both OT and NT, to a new priesthood, of all believers.  Apostles never refer to themselves as “priests offering sacrifices”.  Presbyters are not called priests.  The idea of what the Church calls an order “ministerial priests” seems very “developed” over time.  It’s my understanding they didn’t even celebrate the Eucharist for centuries until bishops allowed it.  Certainly didn’t wear black uniforms, etc.  So I struggle with this.  Not with Christ as High Priest or as sacrifice or as Eucharist.  And I understand the Church leaders (successors to Apostles) have the power to regulate ministry and teaching.  But this idea of “ministerial priesthood” does seem man made to me.

If Hebrews was an addition designed to fabricate a priesthood then every scriptural interpretation or argument fails on the premise that the scriptures are corrupt anyway. If the Catholic church can not be trusted with the authentic canon of scripture and its interpretatiion then why should anyone believe the scriptures are authentic at all and werent corrupted even more over 2000 years.

Its looks like you have to be a scripture scholar now who understands history, aramaic, hebrew and greek or your at risk of following the wrong church..

Lifes to short… I am going with the simple message and promise Christ gave to the Catholic Church the rock!

James, I agree.  That’s the “bottom line” but the Church has reshaped itself over and over again over 2000 years.  Ministerial priesthood is presented almost as “dogma” and the questions being raised is not a rejection of the Church or the Scriptures or the power to interpret… but whether current practice accurately reflects God’s will or does it need revisited.  I don’t agree with Willis on many points such as the “real presence” of the Eucharist, but he raises some interesting issues.  Hebrews does not in my view create a human order of New Testament, ministerial priests nor does the historical record seem to support it for decades even centuries starting w/ the Apostles.  It evolved and did it go too far, go in the wrong direction, and/or gobbling up too much along the way?  They were overseers, presbyters, deacons, but never called “priests” in our canon.  Only priests in the canon are OT Levi and NT sadducces.  So I am interested in Mark’s scholarly response to the development of “priest” in early Church vis’ a vis’ Scripture.  Jesus certainly is High Priest, once for all. Jesus is Temple.    And sacrifice, once for all.  The “breaking of the bread” by apostles and overseers includes all this, but can’t locate a Levite like, priest like type of thing.  There’s much more too this than Hebrews analysis.

Mark, this could have easily been three articles.  Are you thinking of expanding this piece into a book?

Mark ...thanks for all the research and imput refuting this book, which has been gathering *speed* and *cred* as the author goes on all the talk shows and spins his brand of our faith. He still hides out in the church, calling himself Catholic, in order to sell books full of falsehood. If you go to Amazon.com and read the reviews of his book, you will see numerous accolades from none-other than Anne Rice…another author who
sells lies about the church in all her books. Bird of a feather…...

If the ‘History’ Channel and the Discovery Channel teach us anything around Christmas and Easter is this:

Tell that Jesus was something absurd (an alien, a woman, a Roman soldier, Horus) or that what the Church or traditional Christianity teaches is completely wrong (like Wills book) better yet if there is a James Bond like conspiracy behind it (like the Da Vinci Code) the you got one guarantes:

CA$H $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Actually I am sure that I, with a PhD in physica and not in history or biblical studies, would go to the Discovery Channel and tell them that “Jesus was a funny Scot with a kilt who like to swing an Irish shillelagh on the Jordan”... they would probably take me seriously… as long as I make it sound like a secret truth hidden by ‘powerful dark forces’(i.e. the Church).
It would be more serious than moste History/Discovery Channel productions on Jesus (and that’s the sad part).

We are not in the ‘Iron Age’ anymore… we are in the ‘Stupid Age’, because people will believe anything stupid as long as it is ‘unconventional’.

That’s why people like Wills sells: he capitalized on people stupidity and ignorance.

Mark, I’ll have to respectfully agree with John’s comments above.  Catholics seem to avoid (if not loathe) the Book of Hebrews since it does away with the Aaronic (Levitical) Priesthood.
.
Hebrews 10:9 states:  “But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God.”  Why did He sit down?  He “sat down” because Calvary ended the need for a priesthood as Catholicism continues to practice.  Thus, no more sacrifical rite is required due to Calvary.  The Tent of Meeting contained several objects including (1) The Brazen Altar, (2) The Laver, (3) Candlestick, (4) Table of Showbread, (5) Golden Altar, (6) Veil to the Holy of Holies, (7) and the Ark of the Covenant. 
.
You will notice there is no chair in the Tent of Meeting.  Now why is that?  Because———the work of the priest was never finished.  Thus the Levitical priest never “sat down.”  However, when Jesus said “It is finished” at Calvary, it truly was finished.  Thus we have the reference above in Hebrews 10:9 of the high priest (Christ) sitting down “at the right hand of God.”
.
This does not mean we are without need of ministerial leadership, presider, teacher nor church organization, structure and doctrine, but the formal OT priest as mediator no longer applies post Calvary.  Christ has already come so the need for a priest to “bring us Jesus” in the same OT manner incorrect.
.
Scripture furthermore supports this in 1 Timothy 2:5 “For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”
And Peter himself calls all who believe a royal priesthood in 1 Peter 2:9.

And add the ignorance of the likes of Wills to that of the juvenile, selfish antics of the ultra left wing women for priesthood movement ... the and the end result is the same .. the destruction of the sacremental elements of our church.  Good thing the HS is on the side of righteousness.

The All Holy Spirit is Righteousness. Thus is a tree known by its fruit…

“where even the Catholics are largely Protestants who get what information they have about the faith from Protestant and post-Protestant radio and TV”

I wish we could all be “real” Catholics like you Mr. Shea.

What’s after “post-Protestantism.”  We’re there and gone.

I wish we could all be “real” Catholics like you Mr. Shea.

No need to wish. It’s easy. If you are not Catholic, visit your local parish priest. If you are already Catholic, read the Catechism and affirm what the Church teaches and uphold her precepts.

No one can seriously deny the surplus of Catholic ignorance out there. When atheists like Penn Jillette demonstrate more knowledge of Catholicism than ostensibly Catholic Piers Morgan, you know there is a real problem.

I’ll have to respectfully agree with John’s comments above.  Catholics seem to avoid (if not loathe) the Book of Hebrews since it does away with the Aaronic (Levitical) Priesthood.
.
Hebrews 10:9 states:  “But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God.”  Why did He sit down?  He “sat down” because Calvary ended the need for a priesthood as Catholicism continues to practice.  Thus, no more sacrifical rite is required due to Calvary.  The Tent of Meeting contained several objects including (1) The Brazen Altar, (2) The Laver, (3) Candlestick, (4) Table of Showbread, (5) Golden Altar, (6) Veil to the Holy of Holies, (7) and the Ark of the Covenant. 
.
You will notice there is no chair in the Tent of Meeting.  Now why is that?  Because the work of the priest was never finished.  Thus the Levitical priests never “sat down.”  However, when Jesus said “It is finished” at Calvary, it truly was finished.  Thus we have the reference above in Hebrews 10:9 of the high priest (Christ) sitting down “at the right hand of God.”
.
Respectfully, this does not mean we are without need of ministerial leadership, presider, teacher nor church organization, structure and doctrine, but the formal OT priest as mediator no longer applies post Calvary.  Christ has already come so the need for a priest to “bring us Jesus” in the same OT manner re Eucharist is a misapplication.
.
Scripture furthermore supports this in 1 Timothy 2:5 “For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”  Peter himself calls all who believe a royal priesthood in 1 Peter 2:9.

Hi John:

You write:

“I truly respect Catholic Church teaching and your scholarly approach to faith.  I am writing because I find some merit to Willis’ argument, and I value your input regarding my own faith.”

Thanks for seeking light in charity, John.  I appreciate it.

“One aspect of Willis argument (Eucharist) does not bother me.”

I’m not sure what you mean by it bothering you.  If you mean you shrug it off as obvious rubbish, we agree.  If you mean you accept his claim that the Eucharist Real Presence is a “fake”, then it’s not surprising that the priesthood would make no sense since a Eucharist that is not a re-presentation of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, fully present in the Eucharist is not a sacrifice and therefore requires no priesthood.  But if the Eucharist is a sacrifice, then a priesthood to offer the sacrifice is required.

“But I struggle with the priesthood.  Hebrews seems to me to be saying Christ is high priest.”

Right.  But it sees him as the *founder* of a priesthood.  That’s why it speaks perpetually in Eucharistic terms of the “sprinkled blood” and the altar we have a right eat from that Levites do not.

“And Scripture seems to point in several places, both OT and NT, to a new priesthood, of all believers.”

As I noted above, the model is not that in the Old Testament Levites are priests and the rest of Israel is not, followed by New Testament in which every becomes a priest.  The passage in Peter about being royal priesthood and a holy nation which is typically cited to prove this claim is, itself, from the Old Testament and referred orginally to Israel.  What in fact occurs is that Israel, the whole nation, is constituted a priestly nation. Within that nation there is further constituted a sacerdotal priesthood.  The Church takes over the exact same model.  All the baptized are “prophet, priest, and king”.  But among the baptized there is a sacerdotal priesthood charged with the task of offering the Sacrifice of the Mass.

“Apostles never refer to themselves as “priests offering sacrifices”.

Not in so many words.  They also never speak of themselves “writing the Bible.”  But nonetheless, they did.  Paul, as I note, clearly implies that he regard the Eucharist as a sacrifice and contrasts it with the sacrifices offered to pagan deities (1 Cor 10).  Small wonder since the Eucharist is the transfigured offering of the Passover, which is described in Scripture as a “sacrifice.”  If one is offering a sacrifice, one is acting as a priest.  So the ministers who are commanded to offer the Eucharist in the words “do this in memory of me” are ipso facto priests.

“Presbyters are not called priests.”

This is like saying “Gott is not called “God” in German”.  “Presbyter” is the origin of the word “priest”.

“The idea of what the Church calls an order “ministerial priests” seems very “developed” over time.”

Correct.  Originally, the bishop was the one who celebrated the Eucharist when the communities were small enough for one man to do that.  But as they grew he delegated that essentially priestly duty to presbyters.  But the sacrificial offering of the Eucharist was right at the core of the bishop’s work from the beginning.  He did what the apostles did: “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching [the traditions both written and unwritten as Paul says in 2 Thes 2:15] and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread [the Eucharist] and to prayer [the liturgy].” (Acts 2:42).  Jesus never commanded “write this in memory of me”.  He said “do this in memory of me”.

“It’s my understanding they didn’t even celebrate the Eucharist for centuries until bishops allowed it.”

Not centuries.  The Church grew pretty fast.  But think about it.  All that means is that the essentially priestly duty of offering the Sacrifice of the Mass was confined to bishops in the beginning, not that there *were* no priestly duties as Wills claims.

“Certainly didn’t wear black uniforms, etc.”

Okay, but so what?  The details of how a priest is to dress is entirely secondary.

“So I struggle with this.  Not with Christ as High Priest or as sacrifice or as Eucharist.  And I understand the Church leaders (successors to Apostles) have the power to regulate ministry and teaching.  But this idea of “ministerial priesthood” does seem man made to me.”

I’m relieved to hear you say that.  I would say the notion of a priesthood with priestly duties delegated to it by an essentially priestly episcopacy is not “manmade” but “subject to the Church’s authority to bind and loose”.  Wills essential argument is that there *is* no such thing as a NT priesthood, that the very conception of Jesus as a priest at all is complete rubbish, invented by the author Hebrews and present nowhere else in the NT.  The reason for the invention is to impose a priesthood upon a Church that, for decades, had never heard of such a thing.  But since the essentially founding mandate of the Church is “Do this in memory of me” and “this” is “offer the Eucharist sacrifice of the New Covenant established by Jesus, the New Passover sacrifice, in his blood, that means there has to be a new priesthood to offer the New covnenant sacrifice in perpetuity.  The priesthod is the apostles who delegate their priesthood to the bishops, who in turn delegate to the presbyters.

No one could have said it any better or more completely.  My hat is off to you Mark.

Dear Mark, thank you for taking the time to respond to my questions.  Your answers are VERY helpful.  You are very charitable.  And I truly truly appreciate it.  May God bless you for your ministry.

Mark Shea wrote: ” In third millennium America, Will$ $ell$.”

Perhaps, but according to the New York Times Bestseller list, Wills’ book isn’t selling very well.

It didn’t appear on the list of top 35 books until March 3rd, when it was at #18 in the category of hardcover nonfiction.  The following week, on March 10th, it reached #15 in that category.  But on March 17th, the book fell all the way to #27 in hardcover nonfiction.  I think, at this point, it will have a short shelf life.

Wills’ book has never cracked the top 35 list of e-book nonfiction.

I am not sure who is the target audience for this book. In this third millennium, I think people have either made on their mind or they do not care.  George Weigel once wrote that Garry Wills seemed to live in a world which was “forever 1968.”  I have to wonder if this most recent book doesn’t reflect that.

Dear Mark,

Your understanding of Melchizedek is one I have heard both from Catholic Church theologians and teachers and even from a United Church of Church of Christ minister. It was part of the former Latin Mass: “You are a priest on the order of Melchizedek.”

However, as much as even we Roman Catholics believe in the passing down of the hierarchical priesthood of popes, cardinals, bishops and priests, we Catholics also believe that we are all priests in larger sense of the word. If a child or adult who is unbaptized is in danger of death and that adult seeks Christian baptism from us, we Roman Catholics can baptize that person in that state of emergency using ordinary tap water. This is not much spoken of. If the person survives the emergency, they can reapply their wishes to be formally baptized by a priest or bishop. But if the person died during that emergency, that baptism was valid according to what I was taught in Catholic parochial, Catholic high school and Catholic university.

So while the priesthood and bishops are important, even we Roman Catholics do believe in the priesthood of all believers in a general sense. Protestants have believed that the bishops and priests corrupted the Church, and no amount of arguments will change their minds.

But I must point out that, 400 years after Martin Luther has died, the Roman Catholic Church has admitted that one point Luther sought to correct—that salvation comes from faith alone and not from faith and good works—has recently been adopted by the Roman Catholic Church under Pope John Paul II. But even Protestants admit that anyone who has faith must express that faith through good works.

In the year 1000 AD, the Catholic Church created the College of Cardinals and ordered that all priests remain unmarried and celibate as a reflection of the Apostle John who was unmarried. The majority of the 12 Apostles were married, it should be recalled. The Church created these reforms to remove the priesthood and bishops from the power of the Emperor in Austria, who interfered in the naming of popes several times.

Mr. Will reminds us that, while the Catholic Church’s format is admirable, it is not an absolute that cannot be changed. The Church’s reforms in 1000 AD did remove it somewhat from power politics, but it was far from perfect.

To return to columnist George Will whom I admire in general, I think Will would admit that every person in his publishing company can write, but some are columnists, some are editors, some are copy editors, and some are publishers. The need to specialize in handling tasks exists in the business world. And it exists in the world of religion.

I’ve heard the theory that Melchizedek is Shem. Another intriguing possibility is that he’s the pre-incarnate Logos (who had likely appeared to Abraham before when he received the three visitors).

“Shem” is Hebrew for “Name”. One of the covenant promises made by God to Abraham is that he will have a “great name” (a phrase which also implies kingship).

If you think about it, Abraham didn’t actually live to see that promise fulfilled. One way to reconcile this apparent oversight on God’s part is to interpret “I will make your name great” as referring to Christ (a popular hermeneutic anyway).

Jesus is Abraham’s son. He is also God, and The Name is one of God’s titles (resembling the Greek “Logos”). So when God tells Abraham that his name (Shem) will be great, He could mean Abraham, Abraham’s God (Himself), or Abraham’s posterity, e.g. his son. Since Scripture can be polyvalent, I’m disinclined to rule out any of those meanings.

The truly mind-blowing possiblity here is how Melchizedek, Shem, and the Abrahamic covenant could very well tie in with the biblical theme of the younger son surpassing the elder. Isaac is chosen instead of Ishmael. Jacob usurps Esau. As Christ himself points out, David calls his son “my lord”, and the only explanation for that inversion of protocol is if David’s son is in fact greater than he (in fact, he is God).

It’s not beyond the pale to posit how Melchizedek might fit in, given God’s penchant for vindicating younger sons and the fact that he physically joined Abraham’s family. If the king of Salem is the divine Shem, he is being consistent by appearing as Abraham’s (much) younger yet infinitely greater Son.

Jesus strongly implies that David had at least some notion of the Incarnation. It may not be too much of a stretch to suggest that Abraham received a similar hint. (Both events happened at Jerusalem after all.)

Many of the psalms of David were drawn from spiritual visions granted him by the Holy Spirit. He did see the preincarnate Lord Jesus sitted at the right hand of God the Father.

Many of the psalms of David were drawn from spiritual visions granted him by the Holy Spirit. He did see in psalm 110 the preincarnate Lord Jesus sitted at the right hand of God the Father.
NB!
Can someone tell Mr Gary Wills that Jesus Christ is our passover lamb, our burnt offering, our sin offering, our fellowship oferring and our scapegoat.
The catholic priesthood exists because of these.

Hey Robert! You wrote:
“I must point out that, 400 years after Martin Luther has died, the Roman Catholic Church has admitted that one point Luther sought to correct—that salvation comes from faith alone and not from faith and good works—has recently been adopted by the Roman Catholic Church under Pope John Paul II.”

When did this happen? Could you please document - I haven’t heard that! Also - where in the Bible does it say “faith alone?”

I’m sure Robert has in mind the “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification”. But it doesn’t prove what it seems Robert thinks it proves, that the Church changed infallible doctrine, because the Church has never taught that good works “earn” God’s sanctifying grace. Rather, it points out what is easily agreed upon: Faith is absolutely necessary for salvation—and Our Lord absolutely commands us to do good works.

John,

Your comments still makes no sense to me… What do you mean that suggesting that a conflicting view of the Priesthood is not a rejection of the Church or its power to interpret? The belief and practice of a Priesthood to confect the Eucharist existed prior to the Canon being established.  I am not sure of your religous affiliation but candidly it seems from your suggestion that we all gather around the scriptures and decide for our selves 2000 years later that the cornerstone of our faith needs to be revisted because it may not be gods will sounds like a complete rejection of Authority.  John, If I was a prosecuting attorney questioning the reliability of the Scriptures ( the same scriptures we seem to be debating) the First group I would question would be the Catholic Church…. ” Is it correct Catholic Church that its now been proven you gotten the principle form of your worship that demanded a ministerial priesthood incorrect for 2000 years?.”  Yes it is ”  ” Are you the same group that decided what books should be in the bible” yes we are…”    No futher questions your honor!

James: As you rightly surmise, Scripture exists within Tradition (rather than the other way round). And what indeed does Scripture and Tradition point to? None other than the Divine Person, contained within all! Thus does true Authority rest with the meek and humble of this world.

@Scott W:  The comment by James above is a common one whereby it is asked of non Catholics:  “Where in the Bible does is say faith alone?”  Of course, in ACTS 16:29-33 where Paul and Silas declared to the jailer concerning salvation:  ““Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”  Furthermore, in Romans 10:9, Paul state:  “if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”
.
The problem is one of extrapolation by both Catholics and Evangelicals who are poorly taught regarding what .  The expectation of faith in Christ having come to anyone is reflected and demonstrated in a transformed life whereby good fruit is thus produced which does not seek merit to earn salvation but which seeks to honor and glorify God in gratitude for His gift of faith.  I think often Catholics have a problem with this.  It is not you who find God.  Moreover, it is God who finds you.  This is one divide never addressed by the church concening Catholics raised from infancy. 
.
The 1990’s joint document you refer to indeed states that faith is necessary for salvation.  Among the signatories is Francis Cardinal George, Avery Cardinal Dulles, Fr. John Neuhause—a convert from the Lutheran church and other noted Catholics along with well known Evanagelicals Richard Land, Bill Bright, former Nixon White House Counsel Chuck Colson (recently deceased), Pat Robertson and lesser known leaders from Fuller Theological Seminary, Wheaton College and leaders from the Assemblies of God.  The document did not change any theological divide, but did seek a means for Catholics and Evangelicals present a unity in Christ and to bear witness to an unbelieving world.  The Nicean creed and the Doctrine of the Trinity are two more areas of agreement.  It should be further pointed out that the Council of Trent’s disavowing of “faith alone” has never been altered despite the inability of the thief executed with Jesus never having any opportunity to perform “good works.”  The gospel is clear this man was saved by “Sola fide.”
.
A transformed life should mean we are saved not by good works but “unto” good works.  This is the condition Jesus describes as a believer to be “salt and light” in a dark world.  We are to let our light shine before men.  Those who may think their storehouse of good work are somehow meritorious, though, fail to understand the gospel and are driven by the legalism which Jesus continually argued over with the Pharisees.

I am amazed by the level of biblical ignorance on the part of the Catholics who posted, on the one hand, and the pretense at objective truth to bolster their subjective understanding.  We have become so conditioned by one-liner ‘gotchas’ from television interviewers believing posturing is making a point that we have forgotten how to evaluate and present forensic arguments.  Mr. Shea’s arguments are historically, biblically, archaeologically, and ecclesiastically informed and nuanced.  @ John:  Please do a simple word search for the Greek word which is translated into English as priest:  presbyter.  The entire OT speaks to the priesthood established to present sacrifice to reconcile man to God.  Jesus Christ did not come to abolish, but to fulfill the OT law.  In doing so he proclaimed, ‘...until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter of the law (OT) shall pass away…’.  He restored and renewed God’s creation, reconciling everything in heaven and earth to God.  The priesthood therefore does not pass away with Christ’s coming, but is rather restored and renewed, in other words, recapitulated.  Wills’s arguments are so utterly baseless it is laughable and worthy of ridicule.  Mr. Shea does a wonderful job of informing us that because the American public at large, which is more concerned with reality TV shows such as American idol (who says the ‘bread and circuses’ of the Roman empire to lull the masses to sleep are dead and gone), are so woefully ignorant of what is true scholarship at the graduate and post-graduate level that they fall for every pseudo-prophet such as Mr. Wills that happens along.

Mark, this was excellent.  As to Gary Wills, I’m not sure he’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing.  I think he’s an out and open wolf.  It’s the media that cloaks him as the sheep, if you get my metaphor.

Micheal,
I think you affirm a bit of what I was trying to say as a non Scholary Catholic Christian which most likely represents the majority of most Christians of any denomination. Any way a Chrirstian cuts it their understanding of scripture ends up subjecting itself to some sort of authority or Bias either directly or indirectly. If we all have to be graduate scholars now to ensure we are at the right Church them most of us ( lay christians) will never get there.  I am a re-vert that went on the endless and fruitless chase of making my own decisions influenced by my own limitations on what I thought the scriptures proved or did’nt prove.  Ulimately as a I compared Churches that all used the bible to justify their positions it all really boiled down to Authority and Trust and one reasonalbe question .” Did Christ really set up access to the fullness of truth for a mostly illiterate world( that could read bible if they were lucky enough to have one subject to ones own intellect to find it or vet it? ”  No,  I believe now that Christ gave us a visible Church that gave us a bible and a teaching authority.
I finally found rest on the Journey back at the Catholic Church and the sacraments.

The Levitical rulebook is no longer in effect. “Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill” (Mt 5:17) and “Jesus said: ‘It has been accomplished!’ and, bowing his head, he delivered up [his] spirit”- the Lamb died. (John 19:30)
(When one makes the last payment on a house the contract is fulfilled, ended, accomplished. It’s impossible and senseless to offer another payment.)
At that point Jehovah withdrew his support for the old system, symbolized by the tearing of the curtain. (Mr 15:38) With the destruction of the Temple 40 years later all visible traces of proper Levitical worship ended,.
But between the two events Paul taught quite clearly on a new priesthood. “For we have as high priest … one who has been tested in all respects like ourselves, but without sin.” “For such a high priest as this … become higher than the heavens. He does not need daily, as those high priests do, to offer up sacrifices, … (for this he did once for all time when he offered himself up;) for the Law appoints men high priests having weakness, but the word of the sworn oath that came after the Law appoints a Son, who is perfected forever.” (7:26-28)
The sacrifice was the blood of Jesus offered actually on Calvary, not symbolically in the upper room. (Heb 2;9,14; 9:15,16) It was accepted formally fifty days later by Jehovah in a “greater and more perfect tent not made with hands”, when Jesus went “once for all time into the holy place and obtained an everlasting deliverance [for us].” (9:11,12; Dan 7:13,14; Rev 5)
The OP says, “there is plenty of reason for the New Testament to see Jesus as a priest”. Yes, Not as Mark and Doug said, but as scripture says.
“the Eucharist as a sacrifice”. No, that word is not found in the New Testament and the ceremony instituted by Jesus was a memorial- an anniversary observance. (“Do this in memory of me”)
“’Do this in memory of me’ meaning that it is to happen in perpetuity”. Yes, the memorial is observed annually as with other anniversaries, and especially as to the Passover, as the OP states several times. This year that date is the evening of Tuesday, March 26th. Passover- scripture. Easter- tradition. Bede was wrong; the Scots were right.
“requiring a new covenant priesthood”. No, that ‘requirement’ is not found in the New Testament. What is required at any time is what Jehovah commands at that time. Thus Paul and others write about a new form of worship, with sacrifices to be made by all believers, through the high priest Jesus, to Jehovah. (John 10:9; 14:6) But that is another topic.