Since the publication of St. John Henry Newman’s An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, many theologians have labored over the question of the development of dogma.  These theologians have addressed the question of doctrinal development in a variety of ways, sometimes starkly opposed to one another, even when these accounts remain within the ecclesiastical boundaries of doctrinal orthodoxy.  Debates concerning the development of dogma, the nature of theology, and other related matters were a source of vexation and polemics in 20th century Catholic theology and continue to raise questions and concerns today.

Whether accounts of dogmatic development are systematic and orderly or whether they are more affective and eclectic, each of these accounts have found ardent defenders within the Church. Some have even been able to influence the Magisterium in one way or another.  Such influential ability highlights an aspect of how important it is to treat of dogma and its development.

Amidst the turmoil following the close of the Second Vatican Council, many thinkers have followed heterodox understandings of the development of dogma.  Earlier important debates about dogma, such as the debate about the definability of theological conclusions, were almost entirely forgotten about throughout much of the late 20th century Catholic milieu.  But more recently, theologians of such like as Fr. Guy Mansini have begun to reconsider some older questions and have begun to take an interest in returning to a more systematic approach to these questions.

In his The Development of Dogma: A Systematic Account, Mansini sets out to assist in the return to a systematic treatment of the development of dogma.  The book consists of an introduction, an epilogue, and six chapters.  He puts forward a complex account, giving principles, models, and hypotheses inspired by earlier abandoned debates on development, as well as addressing and incorporating the thought of later figures, whether they be figures he wishes to draw upon or to criticize.

The first chapter concerns the nature of the development of dogma, Mansini defines  development of dogma as  “the unfolding of Christian faith into hitherto unformulated and undefined doctrinal propositions. It is the successive unfolding of the one, once-and-for-all revelation of God, completed by and in Christ and first possessed by apostolic faith, into newly articulated doctrines” (5). He characterizes development further here, noting its propositional nature, the unity of dogma, the diversity of dogmatic expressions, the temporal distance involved in development, and the intelligibility of the development. He also puts forward Pneumatological, Christological, and Ecclesiological elements.

The second chapter concerns the invention of dogma.  This is primarily an account of the early usage of the notion of dogma at the Council of Nicaea. Mansini goes at length to expose many relevant considerations.  He addresses the logic at play in the development of the Nicaean dogmas, as well as Scriptural sources and historical context. This is a helpful historical example because it is one of the earliest-known examples of significant dogmatic development, and hence shows what occasions the need for the consideration of dogmatic development at all. This first “case study” also provides Mansini with matter for elucidating what he deems to be the causes of dogmatic development, a necessary task in any truly and properly scientific endeavor.  The illustrations provided in this chapter make the overall themes of the book clearer.

The third chapter gives theological framework for the development of dogma.  Mansini here attempts to contextualize the development of dogma within the broader context of fundamental theology as a whole.  In order to draw forth this context, he discusses revelation broadly speaking, along with Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium, the channels which revelation informs and through which it is communicated. In considering each of these topics, various important issues come to the fore, such as the propositional and cognitive nature of revelation, the question of material sufficiency and the closure of revelation. There are some additional considerations of the relationship of dogma to Scripture and to the Magisterium; dogma is something that is proposed by the Magisterium, and Mansini argues that there are certain scriptural anticipations of the notion of the development of dogma.

The fourth chapter establishes philosophical presuppositions to the development of dogma. There is not only a theological context to this development; there is also an important philosophical context to consider.  The study of the development of doctrine, or even of theology, is not merely the study of Scripture and Tradition articulating themselves through themselves.  If the intelligible connection between the later articulations of the Magisterium and the doctrine contained in Scripture and in Tradition is to be understood, then there must be some understanding of the intellectual operations and ontological necessities that pertain to the development of dogma. For Mansini, this process of establishing philosophical principles involves dealing with cognition, realism, the nature of the concept, the philosophical notion of analogy, and the nature of history. Here, as well as in the introduction to the book, Mansini places himself in opposition to certain post-modern and post-Kantian tendencies, such as historicism and positivism. Rather than abandoning himself to an empty, post-modern textualism, he wants his readers to know that there is a purpose to theology beyond such a textualism.

The fifth chapter treats of the logical verification of the development of dogma. Mansini offers a critique here of Maurice Blondel’s more affective and experiential understanding of revelation, before turning to the discussion of logical verification.  This critique is relevant to the matters under his consideration because the more Blondelian understanding of revelation gained a degree of influence and traction in the 20th century. After this critique, Mansini is able to spend time discussing the logical nature of verification of development of dogma. The inner logic that is present within the development is necessary because of its intelligibility.  The treatment of this logical order and intelligibility that Mansini proposes draws heavily on the thought of the controversial 20th century theologian Fr. Francisco Marín-Sola. Utilizing principles from Marín-Sola’s work that attempt to articulate the manner in which one truth can be implicit in another (although at times registering slight but important modifications to Marín-Sola’s account), he proposes a broad framework of logical methodology for theological argumentation and development of dogma. The considerations of this chapter are essential because if they fail, then the entirety of Mansini’s project of giving a systematic account of the development of dogma fails since it would not satisfy the condition of its intelligibility.

Lastly, the sixth chapter turns to the First Vatican Council’s reflections on dogma and to the Second Vatican Council.  Mansini notes the reflective nature of the First Vatican Council’s teaching on dogma.  In other words, the Council is giving dogma about dogma, something that is perhaps to be expected, given modern epistemological concerns.  He discusses the historical context of the teaching of Vatican I on the immutable nature of dogma, its truth, as well as its relationship to Vincent of Lérins’ Commonitorium.

After this consideration of the First Vatican Council, Mansini moves to the Second Vatican Council.  Here he first gives evidence of some degree of unity of teaching between Vatican I and Vatican II on the immutability of dogma, then he spends considerable time arguing against the claim that Vatican II denies the teaching of Vatican I in practice.  The focus of this argumentation is on the teaching on religious liberty in the decree Dignitatis Humanae.  He does not attempt to demonstratively prove that Dignitatis Humanae is in accord with older teaching, but he tries to give a good amount of evidence that there is continuity between the decree and earlier teaching.  This is another good “case study” in the development of dogma, but for different reasons than Nicaea.  This teaching of Vatican II is a very hotly-debated topic and Mansini’s usage of it helps make it even more clear how important and relevant the question of dogmatic development is today. Mansini’s treatment of religious liberty is especially helpful because of this teaching’s major and evident implications for how Catholics can be expected to behave in civil society.

Mansini provides some additional thoughts at the end of chapter six concerning common sense and the universal accessibility of dogma. Against certain thinkers of the 20th century, these remarks argue for the continuity between the simple faith of the uneducated believer and the complicated dogmatic articulations of the Magisterium, as well as the validity of the articulation of dogma across all times and places.  The doctrine of the Trinity means the same thing for the believer in Africa as it does for the believer in Rome.

Mansini closes the book with some principles summarizing the themes of the book: the fact of revelation’s closure, the linearity of doctrinal development, and the ability of language and concepts to express divine realities truly. He also brings up and opposes some contemporary figures who hold problematic approaches to development.  Opposing these contemporary figures keeps the book relevant to newer objections, rather than exclusively dealing with older figures.

Fr. Mansini’s book is notable for trying to show not only doctrine and principles of the development of dogma, but also giving historical examples and context that illuminate and illustrate both the understanding of development and also that development has been a significant issue even since Nicaea, though perhaps in a less explicit and epistemically-focused form.  The book is also a part of the important effort to revive and further develop scholastic discussion of the development of doctrine.  As old debates are brought back to the mind of the Church through works like this, perhaps we will one day see important magisterial clarifications that will help resolve debates about development, as well as other issues. And for this reason, Fr. Mansini’s book is perhaps an important part of the very subject of which it treats.

Reviewed by: Mitchell Kengor