With the publication of The Prophetic Church, Andrew Meszaros offers an impressive contribution to the ever-burgeoning field of Newman studies. Meszaros’ work stands out from other recent studies of Newman's theology by offering an in-depth, carefully researched analysis of a topic that has yet to receive the kind of attention it deserves—namely, the reception of Newman's thought on the part of Yves Congar, one of the most important Catholic theologians of the twentieth century and an influential peritus at the Second Vatican Council. From the beginning, Meszaros rightly identifies Newman and Congar as two indispensable witnesses in theologians’ ongoing efforts to articulate the truths of the Catholic faith in a way that is sufficiently attentive to the realities of historical conditioning and doctrinal development. As Meszaros observes, Newman's Essay on Development remains the locus classicus on the subject, while Congar's work, building on the structure that Newman set in place, constitutes a true landmark in the history of reception of Newman's theology.

The virtue of Congar and Newman is that both “were historically conscious, but they avoided historicism” (13). While working in eras when Catholic theology (at the official level) exhibited a certain level of wariness about the notion of doctrinal development, Newman and Congar conducted their work with eyes wide open, seeking to provide a coherent account of the reality of this development without compromising the objectivity of the deposit of faith. Ultimately, Congar—drawing from Newman—came to view history not as a burden to be overcome, but as the providential vehicle through which God conveys the truths of the faith to God's pilgrim people on earth. The church, as “a [living] community of active subjects,” cannot transcend time, and misunderstands its vocation if it attempts to do so (71). As Meszaros summarizes the matter, “Because God willed Christ's humanity to be instrumental in our salvation, and because this saving work which includes teaching is continued in a ministry tasked to humans for the sake of humans, so too our humanity [in its historic embodiedness] garners economic instrumentality” (236). In their respective treatments of this fundamental idea, Newman and Congar offer a convincing middle way between modernism and fideism.

Meszaros’ overview of Congar's theological achievement in relation to the work of Newman is both thorough and impressively nuanced. While one can only admire the care that Meszaros shows in analyzing his source material, this reviewer would have liked to have seen a bolder approach near the end of the book. The author gestures toward theological conundrums that the church is currently facing (e.g., on 242: “The compatibility of polygenism and the Church's doctrine of original sin … is far from being solved”), but does not offer constructive proposals for tackling these difficulties in line with the legacies of Newman and Congar. To phrase it another way, the problem of how to employ a theory of doctrinal development is raised, though not constructively teased out. In this respect, Meszaros’ book awaits a companion monograph—one as conversant as his is with the works of Newman and Congar, but focused on practical matters of how to apply their ideas of development to specific cases in a way that authentically preserves the received tradition. For conducting the historical spade work that is a necessary foundation for such a project, theologians will remain indebted to Meszaros’ study for years to come.