What do you think?
Rate this book
A Concise History of the Catholic Church, Revised and Expanded Edition
This critically acclaimed history covers the events and doctrines that have shaped Catholic thought and action over the past two millennia. A singularly useful reference book, updated and expanded for the student of the 1990's.
(note: this is the second edition, newer editions with updated information exist)
(note: this is the second edition, newer editions with updated information exist)
512 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1977
175 people are currently reading
905 people want to read
About the author
Thomas Bokenkotter
6 books5 followersThomas Bokenkotter is the author of the bestselling A Concise History of the Catholic Church. With a doctorate in history (Louvain University) he teaches at Xavier University in Cincinnati. He is also the pastor of Assumption Church there and is active in the social ministry, running a soup kitchen that he founded twenty years ago and a transitional living facility for homeless women and children.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 70 reviews
August 8, 2013
This book is an interesting although deeply flawed look at Church history over the past 2,000 years. It is less a history than a collection of moments in time without a true feel for the flow of events. In addition, many prominent events are simply ignored or passed over with barely a mention. Let me give a few brief examples. Little is said of the collapse of the Church in North Africa where it was thriving (Saint Augustine was a bishop in Hippo) until it was replaced by Islam. The Crusades are barely discussed and their effects on relations with the peoples of the Middle East aren't discussed at all. The Thirty Years War is given a single paragraph. This is surprising because this war turned Europe from a continent of nations based on religion into a continent of nations where national loyalties were more important than religious loyalties. The loss of power of the religious leaders in Europe can be traced to that war.
This is fairly typical of the book. It discusses many prominent people such as Saint Augustine and Saint Jerome in some detail but fails to put their lives into a perspective of overall Church history. The flow of the book is often interrupted by jumps ahead and then back again so sometimes it is confusing because it isn't clear as to what events have occurred and which are still to come. There is also a tendency in the book to move too fast at times and introduce characters with a sentence and then never mention them again.
All that being said, the book is not a complete failure. Taken from a Catholic viewpoint, the book is an acceptable, although incomplete, introduction to Church history. The author does not try to hide the bad acts of the Church that led to the Reformation, for example, and instead points out the critical failures of the Church. His discussion of some key Protestant leaders such as Luther and Calvin will enlighten those who knew little of their lives. In fact, the book is at its best when the author ignores trying to write a history and instead gives us short biographies of key figures in Church history.
The last part of the book covering the period since Vatican II was the most disappointing to me. The author abandons any attempt to write a history and instead turns the book into an editorial about the Church's failure to become "modern" in the last 40 years. Strangely, this is the longest part of the book. I'm not sure how a book claiming to be a history can discuss 1,960 years of Church history in 400 pages and then the remaining 40 years are given more than 100 pages. Overall, the book is fair as an introduction to Church history until about 1900 but a failure as an editorial on the current Church.
This is fairly typical of the book. It discusses many prominent people such as Saint Augustine and Saint Jerome in some detail but fails to put their lives into a perspective of overall Church history. The flow of the book is often interrupted by jumps ahead and then back again so sometimes it is confusing because it isn't clear as to what events have occurred and which are still to come. There is also a tendency in the book to move too fast at times and introduce characters with a sentence and then never mention them again.
All that being said, the book is not a complete failure. Taken from a Catholic viewpoint, the book is an acceptable, although incomplete, introduction to Church history. The author does not try to hide the bad acts of the Church that led to the Reformation, for example, and instead points out the critical failures of the Church. His discussion of some key Protestant leaders such as Luther and Calvin will enlighten those who knew little of their lives. In fact, the book is at its best when the author ignores trying to write a history and instead gives us short biographies of key figures in Church history.
The last part of the book covering the period since Vatican II was the most disappointing to me. The author abandons any attempt to write a history and instead turns the book into an editorial about the Church's failure to become "modern" in the last 40 years. Strangely, this is the longest part of the book. I'm not sure how a book claiming to be a history can discuss 1,960 years of Church history in 400 pages and then the remaining 40 years are given more than 100 pages. Overall, the book is fair as an introduction to Church history until about 1900 but a failure as an editorial on the current Church.
Read
August 16, 2007At first glance, you may think this book large, cumbersome and too heavy a read for the Summer or any other time of the year, but I found it strikingly readable and highly informative.
The author, Thomas Bokenotter, lays out the history of the church from the death of Christ all the way to the election of Pope Benedict XVI. This is not so much a complete history, and as Bokenotter freely admits, it's been criticized at times for not lambasting the church for certain transgressions in it's long and turbulent history, but as he says, that is not what this book is for. It is a short history of a very complex subject, designed to give the reader a brief understanding of what made the Roman church into what it is today. And while Bokenotter does not delve all too deeply into certain aspects of church history, he does not avoid them either, and is open and candid about his feelings on various topics. He approaches the subjects as a historian, and not a theologian, so while there is some slant in the work, I think it's objective enough for anyone wanting a basic, honest history of the Catholic Church.
The author, Thomas Bokenotter, lays out the history of the church from the death of Christ all the way to the election of Pope Benedict XVI. This is not so much a complete history, and as Bokenotter freely admits, it's been criticized at times for not lambasting the church for certain transgressions in it's long and turbulent history, but as he says, that is not what this book is for. It is a short history of a very complex subject, designed to give the reader a brief understanding of what made the Roman church into what it is today. And while Bokenotter does not delve all too deeply into certain aspects of church history, he does not avoid them either, and is open and candid about his feelings on various topics. He approaches the subjects as a historian, and not a theologian, so while there is some slant in the work, I think it's objective enough for anyone wanting a basic, honest history of the Catholic Church.
January 7, 2014
Well... this contained some history of the Church, but I would hardly call it "concise". It was "short", in that the Catholic Church has a history spanning nearly 2,000 years, but that is not the full definition of "concise": it also needs to be somewhat comprehensive, all-encompassing. It fails on this count.
It gives details about a few people (whole chapters on St. Jerome and St. Augustine) while giving the short shrift to others (Aquinas and Albert are lumped into "The Aristotelian Invasion") and no mention of Joan of Arc, Francis of Assisi, or any number of other great Saints and heroes. It glosses over huge swaths of time, mostly focusing on the times when certain people in the Church were corrupt or bad/evil, while neglecting to note the historical context of those times. It also flies right over the many challenges the Church faced (e.g., the Moors in Spain and the Muslims in North Africa) and how it was victorious against them. And, once again, it joins the critics of the Church in painting the Crusades as an offensive to take over land, rather than a defensive counterstrike to retake land stolen in previous centuries.
Aside from not seeming to give a fair shake to the Church, there is a definite bias toward "liberalism" (and against traditionalism), including two whole chapters on "liberal Catholics" (i.e., heterodoxes) being "squelched" (his word, right in the title of one of the chapters).
As with most opinionated history books, the biggest portion of the book is devoted to our own time. (Because, after all, we are the most important people to have ever lived, and this is the most important time for the Church.) In a 530-page "history" book, 150 pages are given to the last 100 years (shouldn't it be more like 5% or 26 pages?), including more than 100 pages since 1976 (well after Vatican II and Humanae Vitae), most of them about the "promise" of change since Vatican II, disappointment about JP2 and the election of Benedict XVI (who, in the author's words, "put the lash" to heretics like Hans Kung and Charles Curran).
An entire chapter about Luther and an entire chapter about Calvin is understandable, but not when there is no such similar chapter devoted to Gregory the Great or Thomas Aquinas. Some famous saints (like St. Patrick and the Venerable Bede) and events (such as The Crusades) are glossed over with a sentence or two, while other events (such as the Spanish Inquisition) are not even mentioned.
All in all, an unsatisfying overview (or 10,000-ft view) of Church history with a definite bias toward the (false) presumption that Church teachings are mutable and can change with the times because "they always have". In fact, one would think that the author was not an authentic Catholic, but was actually a secularist hoping to reform the Church into a club he might want to join, rather than the institution founded by Christ to which we must all decide to be for or against.
The gate is narrow - those who would enter the sheepfold any other way are thieves and murderers. Rewriting history is a sad attempt at widening the gate.
P.S. Any ideas of better books about Church history? (I'm thinking of reading the "History of Christendom" series by Warren H. Carroll.)
It gives details about a few people (whole chapters on St. Jerome and St. Augustine) while giving the short shrift to others (Aquinas and Albert are lumped into "The Aristotelian Invasion") and no mention of Joan of Arc, Francis of Assisi, or any number of other great Saints and heroes. It glosses over huge swaths of time, mostly focusing on the times when certain people in the Church were corrupt or bad/evil, while neglecting to note the historical context of those times. It also flies right over the many challenges the Church faced (e.g., the Moors in Spain and the Muslims in North Africa) and how it was victorious against them. And, once again, it joins the critics of the Church in painting the Crusades as an offensive to take over land, rather than a defensive counterstrike to retake land stolen in previous centuries.
Aside from not seeming to give a fair shake to the Church, there is a definite bias toward "liberalism" (and against traditionalism), including two whole chapters on "liberal Catholics" (i.e., heterodoxes) being "squelched" (his word, right in the title of one of the chapters).
As with most opinionated history books, the biggest portion of the book is devoted to our own time. (Because, after all, we are the most important people to have ever lived, and this is the most important time for the Church.) In a 530-page "history" book, 150 pages are given to the last 100 years (shouldn't it be more like 5% or 26 pages?), including more than 100 pages since 1976 (well after Vatican II and Humanae Vitae), most of them about the "promise" of change since Vatican II, disappointment about JP2 and the election of Benedict XVI (who, in the author's words, "put the lash" to heretics like Hans Kung and Charles Curran).
An entire chapter about Luther and an entire chapter about Calvin is understandable, but not when there is no such similar chapter devoted to Gregory the Great or Thomas Aquinas. Some famous saints (like St. Patrick and the Venerable Bede) and events (such as The Crusades) are glossed over with a sentence or two, while other events (such as the Spanish Inquisition) are not even mentioned.
All in all, an unsatisfying overview (or 10,000-ft view) of Church history with a definite bias toward the (false) presumption that Church teachings are mutable and can change with the times because "they always have". In fact, one would think that the author was not an authentic Catholic, but was actually a secularist hoping to reform the Church into a club he might want to join, rather than the institution founded by Christ to which we must all decide to be for or against.
The gate is narrow - those who would enter the sheepfold any other way are thieves and murderers. Rewriting history is a sad attempt at widening the gate.
P.S. Any ideas of better books about Church history? (I'm thinking of reading the "History of Christendom" series by Warren H. Carroll.)
April 7, 2017
Thoroughly enjoyed this one! Great book to read if you're Catholic and if you're not it never hurts to understand what others believe.
December 26, 2020
Bokenkotter reviews the issues and decisions of Catholic church history in a fair, non-defensive way. He gives balanced time to the losers in contests over orthodoxy, and he doesn't assume the temporary victors are always right. In explaining the choice to ban families for priests in 1074, he honestly shows the arguments in play. The difficulties of controlling priest's wives showed no sign of going away, and the hierarchy's patience ran out. The great Gregorian reform for priestly chastity gathered force because the mainly monastic higher leadership realized how greatly marriage assimilated its clerics to Western women's values (p. 141). The other defining moments in church history, from the codifying of orthodoxy under Constantine, the turn to holy war and persecution against infidels, the great "counter-reformation" revival of service vocations, or the conflicts over modernity, all receive an honest, open treatment.
February 21, 2008
I read this when I first got my CDL and drove End Dump Truck for the City of Minneapolis to do some bad weather clean up.
I got paid 18 dollars/hour to read this over a week. It was worth it. It did nothing to convince me that the Catholic Church is anything but a cult based on tradition, guilt and most importantly blind faith.
I got paid 18 dollars/hour to read this over a week. It was worth it. It did nothing to convince me that the Catholic Church is anything but a cult based on tradition, guilt and most importantly blind faith.
December 10, 2014
This book provides an accessible and fascinating insight into 2000 years of Church history, a herculean achievement. Some might grumble that he spent too little time on the Crusades and the Islamic conquest of North Africa and maybe too much time of the American experience of Catholicism, but I believe in order to write a relatively concise history, there would be inevitably some choices that are disputable. I found he was even handed in his treatment of the early Church's blindspots, such as, its monarchist vision and initial opposition to democratic impulses. However, coming into the 19th and 20th century, I found his obvious biase towards liberalism jarring. Thomism and Scholasticism, particularly in the 19th century, were depicted in very disparaging terms; effectively as outdated, anachronistic and prejudiced, without offering a reasonable explanation for their popularity to this day. The Church's cautious approach to the new theological/biblical study known as the historico-critical method was likewise depicted in villainous terms and its supporters as marytrs. I found all of this too simplistic and lacked objectivity. By the time he got to the 19th and 20th century American experience, it was clear where he stood in the highly-polarised culture wars between liberals and conservatives. Basically, in a nutshell, liberals are the good guys and their ideas are always right, whereas conservatives are the bad guys and their ideas always wrong. The lack of grey areas between these two positions I found disagreeable and short-sighted. His obvious dislike for Pope John Paul II was evident in his every depiction, and who was obviously painted as the arch-conservative. Fr Curran was one of several liberals he speaks rosily of, without ever critically assessing the reasons why these were censored. The only exception to this "good cop/bad cop" oversimplification was in the re-telling of the case of liberation theologian Buff, where for once the Church authorities come across as honest brokers. I didn't find it convincing his moral or historical equivalence between supporters of the historico-critical method and supporters of abortion rights. However, I do find that in the overall arc of this history, you find a Church that is progressing and learning from its past errors, that may be slow to accept certain changes, but that catches up and embraces them. It was a good and fruitful read, despite its flaws.
September 19, 2008
The Catholic church has influenced so much of our world's history that I thought I would learn more about it. I carefully searched to try and get a history that wasn't written by someone who was against the catholic church. This book was apparently written as a textbook to be used in college classes teaching Catholics about the history of their own church.
Because the book was written for Catholics, and I am not a Catholic, I had to decipher a lot of terminology and learn about a lot of Catholic beliefs and practices. This is okay, it was part of the purpose of reading, but this book didn't really explain these things (because it was written for an audience that already knew them) and so I had to search for help understanding elsewhere and most often I just figured it out from context after reading about something over and over again.
It was a very thorough history, even though it was "concise." While it was concise in reference to two thousand years of history, it was perhaps not quite as concise as I had hoped.
That said, I did learn a lot about the Catholic church and how it has influenced society. I finally understood where the science vs. religion debate originates from (I've never seen why there has to be a debate... for me the two can more or less complement each other). Most interesting to me was the way that Catholic policy and doctrine was continually being changed by movements that came from the bottom up in the hierarchy, instead of as a decree from the pope. I also learned about the struggle over whether the Pope or the Council should be in power.
I was surprised by how little or no claim was made to revelation as an important part of the leadership of the church. I'm not sure if that was just this author's view or if it reflects the general view.
The most interesting part for me was when the Catholic church was reaching for, attained, and fell from being the most powerful European influence during the medieval times.
While there are many areas where I do not agree with the Catholic church, I do see that there are many good people within it trying to figure out what God wants and follow it. It is pretty amazing that the Catholic church has survived all it has gone through, especially the simple passage of so much time.
Because the book was written for Catholics, and I am not a Catholic, I had to decipher a lot of terminology and learn about a lot of Catholic beliefs and practices. This is okay, it was part of the purpose of reading, but this book didn't really explain these things (because it was written for an audience that already knew them) and so I had to search for help understanding elsewhere and most often I just figured it out from context after reading about something over and over again.
It was a very thorough history, even though it was "concise." While it was concise in reference to two thousand years of history, it was perhaps not quite as concise as I had hoped.
That said, I did learn a lot about the Catholic church and how it has influenced society. I finally understood where the science vs. religion debate originates from (I've never seen why there has to be a debate... for me the two can more or less complement each other). Most interesting to me was the way that Catholic policy and doctrine was continually being changed by movements that came from the bottom up in the hierarchy, instead of as a decree from the pope. I also learned about the struggle over whether the Pope or the Council should be in power.
I was surprised by how little or no claim was made to revelation as an important part of the leadership of the church. I'm not sure if that was just this author's view or if it reflects the general view.
The most interesting part for me was when the Catholic church was reaching for, attained, and fell from being the most powerful European influence during the medieval times.
While there are many areas where I do not agree with the Catholic church, I do see that there are many good people within it trying to figure out what God wants and follow it. It is pretty amazing that the Catholic church has survived all it has gone through, especially the simple passage of so much time.
October 14, 2019
This book covers a huge amount of history in a concise yet detailed manner. It was rather thorough and often shared differing points of view. I was bothered by the fact that Protestants Martin Luther and John Calvin had longer sections (each an entire chapter) devoted to them then anyone else in the book. It also bothered me that it never really acknowledged the spiritual component of the church. The author would describe politics involved in situations but would never acknowledge that Catholics believe the Holy Spirit is at work in the church. It might be what others believe, it might not be what the author believes, but the Catholic church believes it. For example, when the cardinals vote for the next pope, Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit is guiding the vote that is why unexpected or "compromise" candidates suddenly get elected. While I do not expect the author to explain this as fact, I do expect him to at least acknowledge the belief system of the church. Especially when he does acknowledge the spiritual beliefs of people like Martin Luther and John Calvin.
August 23, 2019
A good overview, particularly of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and the conflict over Vatican II. Lost the quality of its coherence in the last two chapters, which were both written for two separate revisions to address the last quarter of the twentieth century.
February 13, 2008
a must have for any Roman Catholic that wishes to know how the faith historically came to be.
May 29, 2020
I picked up this book to research creation roots of the Catholic church. As a former Catholic, it might seem odd I wouldn’t have already been introduced to this history. It was probably in there somewhere, but much like the Catholic approach to reading the Bible, it was sparse. Eight years in Catholic school and we cracked the Bible open a dozen times, if I'm being generous. Catholics use missals for mass, not bibles. There were three to four missals in each pew shelf, but maybe only one bible per row of pews, if at all. We Catholics don’t have a reputation for bible knowledge. And, now I suspect why.
Roughly, I understood that Constantine accepted Christianity around 300ish AD thereby incorporating it into Roman paganism/mysticism equalling Roman Catholicism. What I didn’t realize is that Catholic history lays claim to all early Christian roots. Catholic accounts will tell you Jesus himself founded the Catholic church! Ballsy. And, is likely why deep diving into the bible isn’t a normal Catholic behavior. It would become obvious quickly that Jesus would in no way approve of the Catholic church’s evolution of papal hierarchy, vast stashes of riches, or systemic corruption. Seems a little too reminiscent of the Jewish hierarchy and corruption Jesus was confronting during his own time described vividly in the New Testament.
Bokenkotter addresses the religion’s inception on page 29. He writes, The traditional Catholic view…is that Jesus himself organized it by appointing the twelve apostles and giving them authority of assuming control of the church after his death…many scholars, including…Catholic ones view this conception as a retrojection… Bokenkotter earned my respect with that admission.
Chapter 4 of A Concise History is dedicated to Constantine and felt authentic. This was my main reason for picking up the book .
To his credit, Thomas Bokenkotter does an amazing job with the details, while taking the time required to explore Christian history. As a novice historian with no authority on critiquing his accounts, I think even a novice can tell you Catholic sponsored atrocities seem a bit whitewashed. The means used by the Popes to crush the Emperors were, in fact, so political in nature as to obscure the spiritual cause the Popes were trying to uphold. Understatement? Here's what he has to say about a few other major controversies:
Crusades Bokenkotter uses benign wording It is in this context that we must try to understand the Crusades, which were such a remarkable expression of the medieval mind.
Pope Boniface VIII The author makes Boniface look like an innocent victim of Philip. Boniface was violent, loved Papal Primacy, and enjoyed underage boys. Not to mention his engagement in simony, the sin of indulgences.
Joan of Arc Bokenkotter omits her completely.
Bokenkotter does commit one chapter to problems within the historic Catholic church innocently named, The Church Fails to Reform Itself In Time. Enter Martin Luther, who the author paints as fervently religious, melancholy, and depressed.
Being no stranger to Catholicism, September, 1980 ushered me into Catholic school and May, 1988 spit me out. After graduating 8th grade, I left for public high school. My early Catholic school experience deeply shaped who I am today, but make no mistake; I thrived in spite of Catholicism, not because of it.
I first realized I was at odds with this institution when in 2nd grade I asked the principal nun, Sister Jean, if I could just confess my sins directly to God rather than going through the priest. She said, “Let me ask Fr. McNeil, then I’ll tell you.” Father agreed I could just tell God my sins and from that day forward my compulsory visits to the confessional were filled with hogwash. Simply God knew the reality of my world safely in the privacy of my bedroom. In 4th grade I didn’t take kindly to hearing that all unbaptized babies go to hell. In college I finally called it quits after the on-campus Catholic church had parishioner students running around in leotards during a special holiday mass. I haven’t looked back.
Fast forward to 2018 when I stumbled across satan during research into child trafficking. Pedophile systems needs kids. Kids are trafficked in. Many priests belong to these pedo rings. I could not wrap my head around the fact that the Vatican refused to directly challenge and act on pedophile priests. They’re good at lip service, but pedophile priests to this day continue to be quietly moved from parish to parish rather than directly addressed as an endemic problem that needs to stop. Then I realized why the Vatican is so reticent. Victim after victim comes forward with stories and all roads lead to Rome.
Most disturbing for me belonging to a family who are 90% practicing Catholics, is why followers of this religion don’t look at it head on and demand change. So here I am revisiting Catholicism by reading as many books as my California library system allows. Compared to other literature, I am impressed with Bokenkotter and his book for the most part. Well done.
In all corrupt systems, there are people, like my family members, neighbors, and friends, who have pure hearts, who truly contribute the the betterment of community and society because of their personal relationship with God/Jesus despite that same blessed relationship’s filtering through evil institutions. We’re all just doing the best we can with what we have. The nuns and teachers at my small Catholic school in the midwest helped root me and their overall kindness is with me today.
Still, why can’t we simply call a spade a spade?
A Concise History of the Catholic Church is one of the more honest accounts coming from a Catholic sympathizer. Worth picking up, but keep the whitewashing in mind.
Roughly, I understood that Constantine accepted Christianity around 300ish AD thereby incorporating it into Roman paganism/mysticism equalling Roman Catholicism. What I didn’t realize is that Catholic history lays claim to all early Christian roots. Catholic accounts will tell you Jesus himself founded the Catholic church! Ballsy. And, is likely why deep diving into the bible isn’t a normal Catholic behavior. It would become obvious quickly that Jesus would in no way approve of the Catholic church’s evolution of papal hierarchy, vast stashes of riches, or systemic corruption. Seems a little too reminiscent of the Jewish hierarchy and corruption Jesus was confronting during his own time described vividly in the New Testament.
Bokenkotter addresses the religion’s inception on page 29. He writes, The traditional Catholic view…is that Jesus himself organized it by appointing the twelve apostles and giving them authority of assuming control of the church after his death…many scholars, including…Catholic ones view this conception as a retrojection… Bokenkotter earned my respect with that admission.
Chapter 4 of A Concise History is dedicated to Constantine and felt authentic. This was my main reason for picking up the book .
To his credit, Thomas Bokenkotter does an amazing job with the details, while taking the time required to explore Christian history. As a novice historian with no authority on critiquing his accounts, I think even a novice can tell you Catholic sponsored atrocities seem a bit whitewashed. The means used by the Popes to crush the Emperors were, in fact, so political in nature as to obscure the spiritual cause the Popes were trying to uphold. Understatement? Here's what he has to say about a few other major controversies:
Crusades Bokenkotter uses benign wording It is in this context that we must try to understand the Crusades, which were such a remarkable expression of the medieval mind.
Pope Boniface VIII The author makes Boniface look like an innocent victim of Philip. Boniface was violent, loved Papal Primacy, and enjoyed underage boys. Not to mention his engagement in simony, the sin of indulgences.
Joan of Arc Bokenkotter omits her completely.
Bokenkotter does commit one chapter to problems within the historic Catholic church innocently named, The Church Fails to Reform Itself In Time. Enter Martin Luther, who the author paints as fervently religious, melancholy, and depressed.
Being no stranger to Catholicism, September, 1980 ushered me into Catholic school and May, 1988 spit me out. After graduating 8th grade, I left for public high school. My early Catholic school experience deeply shaped who I am today, but make no mistake; I thrived in spite of Catholicism, not because of it.
I first realized I was at odds with this institution when in 2nd grade I asked the principal nun, Sister Jean, if I could just confess my sins directly to God rather than going through the priest. She said, “Let me ask Fr. McNeil, then I’ll tell you.” Father agreed I could just tell God my sins and from that day forward my compulsory visits to the confessional were filled with hogwash. Simply God knew the reality of my world safely in the privacy of my bedroom. In 4th grade I didn’t take kindly to hearing that all unbaptized babies go to hell. In college I finally called it quits after the on-campus Catholic church had parishioner students running around in leotards during a special holiday mass. I haven’t looked back.
Fast forward to 2018 when I stumbled across satan during research into child trafficking. Pedophile systems needs kids. Kids are trafficked in. Many priests belong to these pedo rings. I could not wrap my head around the fact that the Vatican refused to directly challenge and act on pedophile priests. They’re good at lip service, but pedophile priests to this day continue to be quietly moved from parish to parish rather than directly addressed as an endemic problem that needs to stop. Then I realized why the Vatican is so reticent. Victim after victim comes forward with stories and all roads lead to Rome.
Most disturbing for me belonging to a family who are 90% practicing Catholics, is why followers of this religion don’t look at it head on and demand change. So here I am revisiting Catholicism by reading as many books as my California library system allows. Compared to other literature, I am impressed with Bokenkotter and his book for the most part. Well done.
In all corrupt systems, there are people, like my family members, neighbors, and friends, who have pure hearts, who truly contribute the the betterment of community and society because of their personal relationship with God/Jesus despite that same blessed relationship’s filtering through evil institutions. We’re all just doing the best we can with what we have. The nuns and teachers at my small Catholic school in the midwest helped root me and their overall kindness is with me today.
Still, why can’t we simply call a spade a spade?
A Concise History of the Catholic Church is one of the more honest accounts coming from a Catholic sympathizer. Worth picking up, but keep the whitewashing in mind.
July 5, 2017
I'll admit I stopped reading just before the chapter on "The Unmaking of Christendom." Focusing on what I did read, I can say that it's a very unsatisfying book. It fails to put things into proper perspective and ends up going forward in time and then backward, causing significant confusion.
This book lends quite a bit of undue weight to a lot of people and events. Saints Jerome (whom it's apparent the author doesn't like for some reason) and Augustine are each given entire chapters, but it's hard to discern how they fit into the overall history of the Church. Tertullian and Justin Martyr are barely mentioned. Albert is given a couple paragraphs, and Aquinas a couple pages, but both are lumped in with the "Aristotelian Invasion." And why refer to it as an "invasion?" There's a lengthy narrative about the struggle between Gregory VII and Henry IV, which seems fairly nicely done, but almost nothing on the Crusades.
Perhaps the biggest reason I stopped reading was because I realized that, despite having gotten to the year 13o0, I was only about 1/3 of the way through the book. Sure enough, I skimmed ahead and realized that an enormously disproportionate amount of time was spent on the 20th century. Perhaps it is the author's fanatical devotion to Vatican II which inspired him to spend so much energy on that era. It makes sense. I picked up a few hints of anti-papal attitudes in the parts that I did read, especially when covering the East-West Schism.
If you're looking for a good book on the history of the Church, one that puts things in their proper perspectives, and which deepens your understanding of the nature of the Church and why it is the way it is, don't pick this one.
This book lends quite a bit of undue weight to a lot of people and events. Saints Jerome (whom it's apparent the author doesn't like for some reason) and Augustine are each given entire chapters, but it's hard to discern how they fit into the overall history of the Church. Tertullian and Justin Martyr are barely mentioned. Albert is given a couple paragraphs, and Aquinas a couple pages, but both are lumped in with the "Aristotelian Invasion." And why refer to it as an "invasion?" There's a lengthy narrative about the struggle between Gregory VII and Henry IV, which seems fairly nicely done, but almost nothing on the Crusades.
Perhaps the biggest reason I stopped reading was because I realized that, despite having gotten to the year 13o0, I was only about 1/3 of the way through the book. Sure enough, I skimmed ahead and realized that an enormously disproportionate amount of time was spent on the 20th century. Perhaps it is the author's fanatical devotion to Vatican II which inspired him to spend so much energy on that era. It makes sense. I picked up a few hints of anti-papal attitudes in the parts that I did read, especially when covering the East-West Schism.
If you're looking for a good book on the history of the Church, one that puts things in their proper perspectives, and which deepens your understanding of the nature of the Church and why it is the way it is, don't pick this one.
July 1, 2009
This book is both extremely dull and appallingly biased. Bokenkotter has no knack for historical narrative and the text is uninteresting even by the low standards of college textbooks. He also has gone so far off the deep end in defending the Catholic Church that the book bears no traces of objectivity. Missionary practices in the new world and Africa are covered as heroic triumphs over savagery. The pedophilia scandal is covered in depth, only so that Bokenkotter can inform the reader that the statistics are not as horrible as some claim, that it is in many ways a media witch hunt, and that besides, many of the children were over 12, so by some semantic wrangling, it's not technically pedophilia. The whole section is grotesque.
I read this book only due to being trapped on a train all day with nothing else. That said, it is debatable if my time wouldn't have been better spent staring off into space.
I read this book only due to being trapped on a train all day with nothing else. That said, it is debatable if my time wouldn't have been better spent staring off into space.
May 3, 2011
On the whole, a balanced treatment of the Church, especially given that Bokenkotter is a priest and might be expected to sweep the dirty laundry under the carpet, so-to-speak. He is very open at acknowledging the strengths and weaknesses of the Roman Catholic Church, although would have liked him to be more explicit about the nature of human vs. institutional fallibility. According to Catholic doctrine, members of the Church, including the Pope, are sinful, but the Church as an institution is not. In addition, elaborating that so called changes in Catholic doctrine are not contradictions of past "rules" but developments of doctrine in the light of new evidence over time. All of this is considered to be guided by the Holy Spirit.
Nonetheless, aside from what appears to be a liberal bias in his last five or so chapters, he does present both sides of the story, whether Catholic/Orthodox, Catholic/Protestant, or Liberal/Conservative Catholic. Highly recommended.
Nonetheless, aside from what appears to be a liberal bias in his last five or so chapters, he does present both sides of the story, whether Catholic/Orthodox, Catholic/Protestant, or Liberal/Conservative Catholic. Highly recommended.
September 5, 2008
Well - I found the first half of the book extremely interesting (the struggles between monarchs and the popes, between popes, between churches (Lutheran, Calvinism, Eastern Orthodox). I found MOST of the second half much slower as it was more about stuggles of interpretations of various theologies within the church. While important, it's hard to make those interesting without providing fuller explanations which is hard to do in a 430 page book that covers 2000 years. The last few chapters are interesting as well.
I find this a must read for those that wish to see the evolution of the Catholic Church or even how others came to be. If you are Catholic and thought that some of the things you believe were always present, then think again. Immaculate Conception? Slightly over 100 years old..for example.
e.
I find this a must read for those that wish to see the evolution of the Catholic Church or even how others came to be. If you are Catholic and thought that some of the things you believe were always present, then think again. Immaculate Conception? Slightly over 100 years old..for example.
e.
March 25, 2014
Although I've finished this concise? history, I won't be removing it from the side of my bed as I have found it an invaluable mine of information. Most sensible people of the 21st century accept the bible as nonsense, but it is extremely gratifying to see an acceptance of this through the writings of a theist. (I believe I've read somewhere that mr Bokenkotter is, in fact, father Bokenkotter, apologies if I'm wrong.)
His use of the phrases "we believe" and " it is generally accepted" when referencing the bible are quite enlightening and his acknowledgment of the hipocrasies,inconsistencies and contradictions are also quite refreshing. I especially enjoyed the chapters on Martin Luther and John Calvin, Puritanical dictatorial psychotics comparable to those great atheists ;-) Hitler and Stalin.
I could go on but you get the picture, well.... I did.
His use of the phrases "we believe" and " it is generally accepted" when referencing the bible are quite enlightening and his acknowledgment of the hipocrasies,inconsistencies and contradictions are also quite refreshing. I especially enjoyed the chapters on Martin Luther and John Calvin, Puritanical dictatorial psychotics comparable to those great atheists ;-) Hitler and Stalin.
I could go on but you get the picture, well.... I did.
March 15, 2021
Should be titled “a dry, biased history of the Catholic Church.” He complains that the church is “anti-woman” but doesn’t mention the great saints such as Therese of Lisieux, Hildegard of Bingen, gives Catherine of Siena literally one sentence, and doesn’t talk about Mother Teresa’s work as he could have. It makes Catholic history look boring, but only because he has left out the parts rich in beauty and majesty, the parts that feed the soul. Then he ends it with a rant about how Pope John Paul II was too conservative, advocates for women priests and to abolish celibacy, hopes JPII’s successor will be liberal—joke’s on him. Benedict XVI was a lion defending church teaching. If you want to know what the Catholic Church really is, a kaleidoscope of spiritual beauty, I do not recommend this.
March 8, 2016
It is difficult to call this either "Concise" or a "History" of the Catholic Church. Admittedly, the challenge would be significant condensing 2000 years of history into these few pages. This is more a part history and part the evolution of theological thought in the church over the centuries. Many important points in history are reduced to a single sentence while other points are allocated an entire chapter. A limitation of reading much into the final few chapters is that it is written in the years immediately following the 2nd Vatican Council with a great deal of speculation which has not panned out. While this book can be used as a starting point, I wouldn't suggest this being the only history book on the subject of the Church you read.
December 18, 2011
If you're looking for information, then you'll find it here. If you want to be entertained, well... unless you're into the more dry material, this will probably be a little overly wordy for you. It's chock full of information and good for anyone studying religion, but the average Joe or Jane off the street probably will want to stick to a lighter read.
The good thing about this book is that every once in a while you'll get passages that will draw you in and keep you entertained. The book is written from a very pro-Catholic stance (obviously), so sometimes I got the impression that the book glossed over somet hings, but overall Bokenkotter does try to show that the Church wasn't perfect.
The good thing about this book is that every once in a while you'll get passages that will draw you in and keep you entertained. The book is written from a very pro-Catholic stance (obviously), so sometimes I got the impression that the book glossed over somet hings, but overall Bokenkotter does try to show that the Church wasn't perfect.
January 18, 2019
This history is just what it says it is. Written by a committed Catholic, it treads a very sensitive tightrope, telling the objective truth about developments of and in the Catholic church (especially the papacy) but presenting it in a relatively positive light, and presenting quite briefly many of the episodes and developments that cast a more negative light on this important history.
February 14, 2010
Fairly ill-informed, agenda-driven work trying to disguise itself as an introductory work for beginners, which is why beginners should be steered clear of this thing.
September 11, 2017
I read this a few years back. It is comprehensive and very readable. This books is written from a liberal standpoint.
July 30, 2019
weak last 130 pages, but pretty good first 400.
February 4, 2025
“A Concise History of the Catholic Church” is a product of its time. Catholic author Thomas Bokenkotter embraces progressive tropes, and his analysis of Christian history is heavily coloured by what liberal Catholics in the 1960s were excited about. Nearly 40 years later, many of Bokenkotter’s predictions (such as the imminent Catholic ordination of women or the repealing of Humanae Vitae) look even less likely than they did in the 80s. This book isn’t terrible as a survey of Catholic history, but the sections on the early church and the 20th century church are quite weak.
I’ll give some loosely ordered notes below. TLDR: a succinct and information-dense history of the Catholic Church that suffers from heavily-biased analysis.
The treatment of the historical Jesus in chapter 1 is weird. Bokenkotter argues, without any reference to scripture, that Jesus didn’t “[appeal] to traditional forms of authority, [but rather] invoked his own religious experience and urged his hearers to do the same” (13). This is an odd statement, as the Jesus described in the gospels consistently claims that he had divine authority from God the Father (Matt 28:18, John 5:27, John 14:10-11) and validates this authority with miraculous signs. Jesus is also unequivocal in his moral teaching; he isn’t calling people to rely on their own religious experience, but rather calls them to renewed and strict adherence to the Jewish moral law (Matt 5-7 is a great example of this). Bokenkotter apes 1960s progressive tropes by characterizing Jesus as an anti-establishment religious guru rather than as an incisive moral teacher with divine authority.
Bokenkotter also questions the coherence of the Gospel narratives, stating that “an analysis of the [Gospel] tradition often shows that the brute historical fact was much reworked in the course of tradition” (12). He doesn’t clarify what this means; what “brute historical facts” were changed by the gospels? Bokenkotter further argues that parallels between the gospels’ miracle accounts and 1st century pagan literature largely invalidate the idea that Jesus was actually a miracle worker. The problem here isn’t that Bokenkotter makes historical critical arguments, but that he states their conclusions as historical facts without any justification. This reflects a broader issue with Bokenkotter’s analysis in this book.
Bokenkotter embraces a bunch of questionable interpretations of early-christian history. He places heavy emphasis on the “original spirit of community participation” (131) and speaks derisively about liturgical ceremony and hierarchical ecclesial structures. He argues that ad orientem worship, in which the priest faces the same direction as the people while offerIng the sacrifice of the Mass, is a pagan accretion (42). This is a silly take, as this type of liturgical orientation was almost universal in the early church and has roots in pre-Christian Judaism; Bokenkotter tries to justify Vatican II’s liturgical changes by making the traditional ceremonial seem anachronistic.
The sections on the Middle Ages and the reformation are solid; Bokenkotter succinctly covers a lot of material and is even-handed in his analysis.
Bokenkotter’s overview of the post-reformation church was interesting and helpful, although his analysis is heavily skewed towards a (dated) progressive perspective. Conservatives (especially conservative Popes) are the bad guys here, while the progressives who dared to challenge the teachings of the Church are heroes.
In the final section of the book, Bokenkotter characterizes “conservatives” (i.e. anybody who doesn’t embrace women’s ordination, contraception, divorce, pre-marital & homosexual sex, a grass-roots ecclesiology, and a subjective moral framework) as ignorant reactionaries who need to be enlightened by proper historical scholarship. He suggests that the magisterium was wrong and will probably change its mind about women’s ordination and contraception.
The treatment of the historical Jesus in chapter 1 is weird. Bokenkotter argues, without any reference to scripture, that Jesus didn’t “[appeal] to traditional forms of authority, [but rather] invoked his own religious experience and urged his hearers to do the same” (13). This is an odd statement, as the Jesus described in the gospels consistently claims that he had divine authority from God the Father (Matt 28:18, John 5:27, John 14:10-11) and validates this authority with miraculous signs. Jesus is also unequivocal in his moral teaching; he isn’t calling people to rely on their own religious experience, but rather calls them to renewed and strict adherence to the Jewish moral law (Matt 5-7 is a great example of this). Bokenkotter apes 1960s progressive tropes by characterizing Jesus as an anti-establishment religious guru rather than as an incisive moral teacher with divine authority.
Bokenkotter also questions the coherence of the Gospel narratives, stating that “an analysis of the [Gospel] tradition often shows that the brute historical fact was much reworked in the course of tradition” (12). He doesn’t clarify what this means; what “brute historical facts” were changed by the gospels? Bokenkotter further argues that parallels between the gospels’ miracle accounts and 1st century pagan literature largely invalidate the idea that Jesus was actually a miracle worker. The problem here isn’t that Bokenkotter makes historical critical arguments, but that he states their conclusions as historical facts without any justification. This reflects a broader issue with Bokenkotter’s analysis in this book.
Bokenkotter embraces a bunch of questionable interpretations of early-christian history. He places heavy emphasis on the “original spirit of community participation” (131) and speaks derisively about liturgical ceremony and hierarchical ecclesial structures. He argues that ad orientem worship, in which the priest faces the same direction as the people while offerIng the sacrifice of the Mass, is a pagan accretion (42). This is a silly take, as this type of liturgical orientation was almost universal in the early church and has roots in pre-Christian Judaism; Bokenkotter tries to justify Vatican II’s liturgical changes by making the traditional ceremonial seem anachronistic.
The sections on the Middle Ages and the reformation are solid; Bokenkotter succinctly covers a lot of material and is even-handed in his analysis.
Bokenkotter’s overview of the post-reformation church was interesting and helpful, although his analysis is heavily skewed towards a (dated) progressive perspective. Conservatives (especially conservative Popes) are the bad guys here, while the progressives who dared to challenge the teachings of the Church are heroes.
In the final section of the book, Bokenkotter characterizes “conservatives” (i.e. anybody who doesn’t embrace women’s ordination, contraception, divorce, pre-marital & homosexual sex, a grass-roots ecclesiology, and a subjective moral framework) as ignorant reactionaries who need to be enlightened by proper historical scholarship. He suggests that the magisterium was wrong and will probably change its mind about women’s ordination and contraception.
October 12, 2025
Greatly comprehensive, yet partially problematic.
'A Concise History of the Catholic Church' by Fr Thomas Bokenkotter is an immense work. 531 pages not including its bibliography and index, it described the history of the Roman Catholic Church, from the beginning with Jesus all the way to the election of Cardinal Ratzinger, development of dogmas and doctrines, politics between Popes and European rules as well as liberals and conservatives, and legacies of the Church's actions, positive and negative.
On the one hand, I praise Bokenkotter for the sheer amount of research to cover the aforementioned topics, defining terms and themes in Church history like Scholasticism and Gallicanism, and incorporating different views of theologians and the hierarchy on topics and issues. He is capable, in sum, of teaching about different eras and their overarching themes.
On the other hand, I cannot help but think he used a bit of flawed research about the Early Church, claiming that things like incense were pagan introductions into the liturgy or that Christmas was rehashed Saturnalia. I was also saddened by his bias against traditionalists in the Church, especially against Cardinal Ratzinger near the end of the work.
In conclusion, I commend Bokenkotter for undertaking this initiative. 'A Concise History of the Catholic Church' is an impressive work to describe Church history from Jesus to Benedict XVI, with flaws that could be rectified in a potential second volume for the 2020s.
I recommend the book to fellow Catholics.
'A Concise History of the Catholic Church' by Fr Thomas Bokenkotter is an immense work. 531 pages not including its bibliography and index, it described the history of the Roman Catholic Church, from the beginning with Jesus all the way to the election of Cardinal Ratzinger, development of dogmas and doctrines, politics between Popes and European rules as well as liberals and conservatives, and legacies of the Church's actions, positive and negative.
On the one hand, I praise Bokenkotter for the sheer amount of research to cover the aforementioned topics, defining terms and themes in Church history like Scholasticism and Gallicanism, and incorporating different views of theologians and the hierarchy on topics and issues. He is capable, in sum, of teaching about different eras and their overarching themes.
On the other hand, I cannot help but think he used a bit of flawed research about the Early Church, claiming that things like incense were pagan introductions into the liturgy or that Christmas was rehashed Saturnalia. I was also saddened by his bias against traditionalists in the Church, especially against Cardinal Ratzinger near the end of the work.
In conclusion, I commend Bokenkotter for undertaking this initiative. 'A Concise History of the Catholic Church' is an impressive work to describe Church history from Jesus to Benedict XVI, with flaws that could be rectified in a potential second volume for the 2020s.
I recommend the book to fellow Catholics.
February 21, 2022
Trying to tackle the entire history of the Church in a single volume is a monumental undertaking. Deciding what to include and omit is fraught, and I won’t fault the author for his decisions.
More troubling was the obvious reading of the entire history of the Church through the lens of a liberal interpretation of the Second Vatican Council. The author’s obvious bias is less a problem than his lazy characterizations of those who are obviously in the Scholastic or Traditionalist camps.
The irony is that when the reforms that the author spent 300 pages clamoring for finally dawn, the results are devastating: confusion, heresy, a lack of vocations, and declining Mass attendance. He discusses these problems in the final chapters of the work, but never seems to question the rotten fruits of his long sought reforms.
In the end, the book tells us more about the time in which it was written and the liberal Catholicism that shaped the author than it does about the long history of the Church. In that sense, at least, it is interesting.
More troubling was the obvious reading of the entire history of the Church through the lens of a liberal interpretation of the Second Vatican Council. The author’s obvious bias is less a problem than his lazy characterizations of those who are obviously in the Scholastic or Traditionalist camps.
The irony is that when the reforms that the author spent 300 pages clamoring for finally dawn, the results are devastating: confusion, heresy, a lack of vocations, and declining Mass attendance. He discusses these problems in the final chapters of the work, but never seems to question the rotten fruits of his long sought reforms.
In the end, the book tells us more about the time in which it was written and the liberal Catholicism that shaped the author than it does about the long history of the Church. In that sense, at least, it is interesting.
October 4, 2012
A Concise History of the Catholic Church by Thomas S. Bokenkotter
A review by Anthony T. Riggio
October 4, 2012
I ordered this book from Amazon after reading "Christianity, the First Three Thousand Years" by Diarmaid MacCulloch (an Anglican Scholar). It was an interesting book which I rated on Amazon with some interest in understanding Christianity from a "secular" point of view and while I did not write a long analysis of my thoughts on this book, my Amazon and Goodreads show the following: "Good historical work; Anglican biased; Not a Spiritual work. Looong read!" I guess after reading this book I got a bit lazy and took a short way out with my glib review. As I was accidentally looking at other religious books, I spotted the title of the instant book on Amazon before I read the reviews which seemed to be all over the scale with high praise for the book at ratings 4 and 5 stars and almost half of the reviews were three or less with 14 readers rating it a one (1) star. I did not read the reviews because I did not want to bias my views so I ordered the book (paperback) edition for $12.33 (Prime) and when I received it, the type was too small to comfortably read, so I ordered for my Kindle for $14.99 ( I could not believe it) but I have found this dichotomy with other publications. It would seem that the cost of printing is not a factor here.
A Concise History of the Catholic Church is a slight misnomer with a book of over 600 pages with small type (thank God for the Kindle edition where I could enlarge the type face to a more comfortable size). Also, I would highly recommend the Kindle edition for this book in view of the fact that there are so many terms and words which are not in most contemporary reader's vocabulary. I found this too with Diarmaid MacCulloch book as well and it would have been somewhat easier with the Kindle built in dictionary...bravo.
Luckily I had plowed through the history of the Church in MacCulloch's book, so I was able to quickly understand some of the more difficult concepts of the early schisms and heresies developed during the growth of Jesus' Church. Interestingly, these schisms and heresies continue until today and of course with a centralized Catholic church these are often put to rest before they become protests ergo protestant in nature. In Thomas Bokenkotter's, A Concise History... his central idea's or criticisms are not truly manifest until he comes to the more modern years of the Catholic Church.
Bokenkotter's book had me up and down emotionally and in my understanding of my own religion, to wit, Roman Catholicism. It was like an intellectual rollercoaster where I rooted for a decentralized Catholic Church and then realized that it could not work without great disputes and intellectual and spiritual wrestling matches that would injure and cause damage to the "One Holy and Apostolic" Catholic church of which I am a member. A cradle to grave catholic who like most people struggles with his beliefs and often wonders into dangerous areas having to kick myself back on track as I am just a simple Catholic who has not had all the educational experiences that both MacCulloch and Bokenkotter have experienced. So my criticisms and observation come from a wide base of ignorance about my church. I am, however, a lover of history with advanced degrees in the nonacademic and more practical areas of the Law.
Please understand I am not down on Thomas Bokenkotter but do not quite understand his conclusions about a more diversified and less structured Church, which is where often the really smart people take issue because of their education and experiences and their insufferable pride. Bokenkotter never identifies himself as a Catholic Priest, which he is, and that by itself, causes me some concern.
If readers of this book are not firmly anchored in their faith and belief systems regarding the Roman Catholic Church, be very aware and astute to some of the author's teachings as they may be antithetical to the Church (my perspective alone as I have not read any condemnations of the book).
Now this being said, there were some very enlightening items in this book which I never fully understood and are meaningful for not only Catholics but Christians of all denominations. They are the very serious social issues and the ones that are the most difficult for Christians of all stripes. For example the Church issues in Africa, Asia and Latin America. The issue of Liberation Theology is explored with great detail in a way that the average person can easily understand. The issue of both homosexuality and women in the priesthood are carefully explored though I am not clear on the author's position on each. Bokenkotter also addresses the recently explosive issue of pedophilia or rather sexual abuses by priests which have caused great damage to the Catholic Church both in financial and social arenas.
I am not by any stretch of the imagination a scholar, which I think this book is intended for, but if the reader has the "stick -to- it-ive-ness", the book is worth the read. I promise you will learn a lot about the Church, the Author and most important, yourself as a believer of the greatest teacher you will ever have, Jesus Christ, who through the Holy Spirit will guide you safely through the really rough areas (at least rough for me).
I gave this book three and a half stars, at least in my own personal conclusions as I am bound to whole number stars in Amazon. I recommend reading the book!
A review by Anthony T. Riggio
October 4, 2012
I ordered this book from Amazon after reading "Christianity, the First Three Thousand Years" by Diarmaid MacCulloch (an Anglican Scholar). It was an interesting book which I rated on Amazon with some interest in understanding Christianity from a "secular" point of view and while I did not write a long analysis of my thoughts on this book, my Amazon and Goodreads show the following: "Good historical work; Anglican biased; Not a Spiritual work. Looong read!" I guess after reading this book I got a bit lazy and took a short way out with my glib review. As I was accidentally looking at other religious books, I spotted the title of the instant book on Amazon before I read the reviews which seemed to be all over the scale with high praise for the book at ratings 4 and 5 stars and almost half of the reviews were three or less with 14 readers rating it a one (1) star. I did not read the reviews because I did not want to bias my views so I ordered the book (paperback) edition for $12.33 (Prime) and when I received it, the type was too small to comfortably read, so I ordered for my Kindle for $14.99 ( I could not believe it) but I have found this dichotomy with other publications. It would seem that the cost of printing is not a factor here.
A Concise History of the Catholic Church is a slight misnomer with a book of over 600 pages with small type (thank God for the Kindle edition where I could enlarge the type face to a more comfortable size). Also, I would highly recommend the Kindle edition for this book in view of the fact that there are so many terms and words which are not in most contemporary reader's vocabulary. I found this too with Diarmaid MacCulloch book as well and it would have been somewhat easier with the Kindle built in dictionary...bravo.
Luckily I had plowed through the history of the Church in MacCulloch's book, so I was able to quickly understand some of the more difficult concepts of the early schisms and heresies developed during the growth of Jesus' Church. Interestingly, these schisms and heresies continue until today and of course with a centralized Catholic church these are often put to rest before they become protests ergo protestant in nature. In Thomas Bokenkotter's, A Concise History... his central idea's or criticisms are not truly manifest until he comes to the more modern years of the Catholic Church.
Bokenkotter's book had me up and down emotionally and in my understanding of my own religion, to wit, Roman Catholicism. It was like an intellectual rollercoaster where I rooted for a decentralized Catholic Church and then realized that it could not work without great disputes and intellectual and spiritual wrestling matches that would injure and cause damage to the "One Holy and Apostolic" Catholic church of which I am a member. A cradle to grave catholic who like most people struggles with his beliefs and often wonders into dangerous areas having to kick myself back on track as I am just a simple Catholic who has not had all the educational experiences that both MacCulloch and Bokenkotter have experienced. So my criticisms and observation come from a wide base of ignorance about my church. I am, however, a lover of history with advanced degrees in the nonacademic and more practical areas of the Law.
Please understand I am not down on Thomas Bokenkotter but do not quite understand his conclusions about a more diversified and less structured Church, which is where often the really smart people take issue because of their education and experiences and their insufferable pride. Bokenkotter never identifies himself as a Catholic Priest, which he is, and that by itself, causes me some concern.
If readers of this book are not firmly anchored in their faith and belief systems regarding the Roman Catholic Church, be very aware and astute to some of the author's teachings as they may be antithetical to the Church (my perspective alone as I have not read any condemnations of the book).
Now this being said, there were some very enlightening items in this book which I never fully understood and are meaningful for not only Catholics but Christians of all denominations. They are the very serious social issues and the ones that are the most difficult for Christians of all stripes. For example the Church issues in Africa, Asia and Latin America. The issue of Liberation Theology is explored with great detail in a way that the average person can easily understand. The issue of both homosexuality and women in the priesthood are carefully explored though I am not clear on the author's position on each. Bokenkotter also addresses the recently explosive issue of pedophilia or rather sexual abuses by priests which have caused great damage to the Catholic Church both in financial and social arenas.
I am not by any stretch of the imagination a scholar, which I think this book is intended for, but if the reader has the "stick -to- it-ive-ness", the book is worth the read. I promise you will learn a lot about the Church, the Author and most important, yourself as a believer of the greatest teacher you will ever have, Jesus Christ, who through the Holy Spirit will guide you safely through the really rough areas (at least rough for me).
I gave this book three and a half stars, at least in my own personal conclusions as I am bound to whole number stars in Amazon. I recommend reading the book!
December 17, 2018
Engrossing at times, but most other times it reads too much like a textbook to really be enjoyable. It is readable for the "lay" person who wants to know more about the Catholic Church (whether the reader is Catholic or not) and it is informative. It is, unfortunately, not told in an interesting way. The history of the Church is two thousand years long; immense challenges and changes have occurred over this time and the Church has been a witness and prime mover in some of the changes. But the stories and people are reduced to clinical interpretations and stilted narrative.
February 25, 2021
I think that for the majority of the book Bokenkotter does a fine job of tracking the history of the Church and boiling it down to some of its most essential periods of history and events. Despite this, his treatment of the 19th to 21st century is incredibly biased, so I only found it useful in reading it as an opinion piece with history mixed in the stew. He's very clearly aligned with the liberal point of view that he paints as freeing, while the conservative point of view is like a chain around your ankle.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 70 reviews