This article examines Jane Barter Moulaison’s critique of Bernard Lonergan’s The Way to Nicea, and proposes a more generous interpretation of his project. Barter Moulaison’s critique rests upon a misreading of Lonergan. She conceives of doctrine as a liturgical distillation of Christian narrative, but he understands the Nicene homoousion as a shift toward systematic meaning in the expression of Christian teaching. This shift presupposes a Christian realism mediated by true judgments. It developed through a dialectical process in which the inadequacies of earlier formulations were gradually brought to light and eliminated, to arrive at the judgment that what is true of the Father is equally true of the Son and the Holy Spirit.