Enlightened and Holy, Yet Imperfect, Luminaries of the Faith

Imagine a candlestick resting on a table in the corner of a dark room, whose flame does not fade, does not flicker, and does not burn out, but perpetually illuminates the corner and draws others towards its light. This everlasting flame is like a teaching of a Doctor of the Universal Church, seeking not to illumine the entirety of the dark room, but keeps the corner of the room illuminated. Similarly, the teachings of the Church Doctors illumine some component(s) of the mysteries of the Catholic faith without trying to plumb the entirety of the mystery of God. On 31 July 2025, Pope Leo XIV declared that St. John Henry Newman will be honored with the title, Doctor ecclesiae universalis (Doctor of the Universal Church).1 Newman will join the ranks of thirty-seven other male and female saints who have been conferred with the title, for the universality and lasting significance and impact of his teachings.2

Newman was captivated by the teachings of the Church Fathers,3 seventeen of whom have been named Doctor universalis ecclesiae.4 Some of the Doctors of the Universal Church have received special titles. For example, St. Augustine is Doctor gratiae (Doctor of grace), St. Cyril of Jerusalem is Doctor incarnationis (Doctor of the Incarnation), and St. Peter Chrysologus is Doctor homiliarium (Doctor of Homilies) based on their contributions to the Church’s understanding of divine revelation5 This article explores Newman’s investigation of two named Doctors of the Universal Church, St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom, and the Virgin Mary to illustrate Newman’s understanding of what it means to be a Doctor of the Universal Church.

Saint Augustine of Hippo (354–430)

One of the defining characteristics of the great saint and Doctor, St. Augustine of Hippo, was his conversion,6 which Newman understood to be central to the significance of Augustine’s teaching. Geertjan Zuijdwegt defines a conversion to be “a new perception of the extent of the depth of one’s sins.”7 St. Augustine’s honest and personal account of his sins is passed down from one generation to the next in his Confessions. For example, he candidly shared a scenario when he stole a pear, not to satisfy his hunger nor because he desired the pear itself, but because he desired to be thrilled by the act of “theft and sin” and “loved” this error.8 Augustine’s grave sins of pride and lust lured him away from God as he first and foremost loved himself.

To Newman, Augustine’s sins were rooted not just in both the weakness of the flesh and in an error of the intellect.9 Augustine was attracted to the rationalism of the Manichaean religion,10 which also distanced him from God. Instead of trusting in God and surrendering to His will, Newman asserted that Augustine “judged of truth and falsehood by his private judgment and his private fancy” and “thought to make his own reason the measure of all things.”11 Newman argued that Augustine lacked the necessary virtue of faith to fully assent to the truth of divine revelation even ever after he abandoned the Manichaean paradigm of rationalism.12

St. Augustine’s conversion was not just a conversion away from sin. It was also a turning away from heresy. Newman illustrated the beauty of Augustine’s conversion:

in spite of his still being, as before, in a state of wrath, nevertheless grace was making way in his soul,—he was advancing towards the Church. He did not know it himself, he could not recognise it himself; but an eager interest in him, and then a joy, was springing up in heaven among the Angels of God. … O, sin was so sweet, how could he bid it farewell? how could he tear himself away from its embrace, and betake himself to that lonely and dreary way which led heavenwards? But God’s grace was sweeter far, and it convinced him while it won him; it convinced his reason, and prevailed;—and he who without it would have lived and died a child of Satan, became, under its wonderworking power, an oracle of sanctity and truth.13

God’s grace was so sweet that it convinced Augustine of his current course of destruction and that he had to change. For Newman, the alluring sweetness of God’s grace also convinced Augustine of the truth of the Christian faith, thereby redirecting his life on a radically different path, one rooted in the vocation of doctrina (teaching).

While Newman in no way condoned or excused Augustine’s sins and vices, he interpreted Augustine’s life experiences as touched by the sweetness of divine grace, becoming a gift to the world as they were used for good.14 According to Newman’s account, the Lord “leaves it [sin] in the penitent in such sense as enables him, from his knowledge of its devices, to assault it more vigorously, and strike at it more truly, when it meets him in other men.”15 For Newman, Augustine’s knowledge and memory of his previous perverse ways and understanding permitted him to teach about the faith to a deeper and richer extent than if he had not engaged in sins of self-love in the first place.16 Newman interpreted Augustine’s trajectory of becoming an influential and timeless teacher of divine revelation because his teaching was grounded in his own personal experiences and growth toward God. Accordingly, Newman discerned that Augustine experienced God’s grace in such a profound way that he became the one, and only, Doctor gratiae.

St. Monica played no small part in her son’s (St. Augustine) conversion and path to becoming a saint and Doctor of the Universal Church through her perseverance in prayers for him.17 Newman perceived St. Monica to be an icon of the Church, for just as Monica grieved the lost soul of her son, the Church grieves all her children who have been overtaken by sin and vice.18 Newman contemplated how St. Monica’s thankfulness for her son’s conversion from pride and corruption to holiness was like Simeon’s Nunc dimitis.19 Just as Simeon had patiently kept watch for the long-awaited Messiah, St. Monica no longer had to walk the earth in mourning for the spiritual death of her son, for he had been reborn and had become “a luminary for all ages of the Church.”20 Newman therefore understood the role the members of the body of Christ play in building up the Kingdom of God here on earth.

Through his exploration of St. Augustine’s life and works, Newman underscored that one does not become a great Doctor of the Church without the help of others and the sweetness of God’s grace. Conversions of souls transpire through the intervention of the Church as it “restrain[s] and reclaim[s] those whom passion, or example, or sophistry is hurrying forward to destruction.”21 It is by the grace of God and the intercession of the members of the Church that any of God’s children can be converted closer to him but also through which great teachers of doctrine are formed.

St. John Chrysostom (347–407)

As a Catholic, Newman professed that he possessed a special devotion to, and love, for St. John Chrysostom, esteeming him for his neglect of self.22 As a legendary preacher and teacher, St. John Chrysostom was given the name Chrysostom, meaning “golden-mouthed.”23 His homilies on scripture are the biggest corpus of biblical exegesis from the patristic period.24 It was in large part due to the contribution of these distinguished homilies, which interpreted each verse of a biblical passage according to his contemporary circumstances, that St. John Chryostom was named a Doctor of the Universal Church.25 Moreover, he wrote mystagogical catecheses, or instructions, on the Eucharist for neophytes.26

St. John Chrysostom’s unique contribution to doctrine rested in his ability to discern the reality of circumstances and the human condition. Newman declared: “In him [St. John Chrysostom] I recognize a special pattern of that very gift of discrimination.”27 To Newman, St. John Chrysostom’s “discriminating affectionateness” permitted him to simultaneously discern the uniqueness of each person and the “complicated whole” of the universe.28 Newman reflected:

That charm lies … in his [St. John Chrysostom’s] habit and power of throwing himself into the minds of others, and of imagining with exactness and with sympathy circumstances or scenes which were not before him. This is why his mode of writing is so peculiar, and why, when once a student enters into it, he will ever recognize it wherever he meets with it.29

Newman underscored that St. John Chrysostom is a treasure among the great teachers of the Church because of his unique capability, gifted by the grace of God, to help others to appreciate the beauty of the Word of God and to make it relatable to the human experience.30 Thus, Newman referred to St. John Chrysostom as the “charm” of the literal interpretation of scripture since he was able to penetrate the minds and hearts of others with the truth of the Gospel.31

Despite St. John Chrysostom’s treasured contributions to the doctrine of the faith, his writings have not been without scrutiny. St. John Chrysostom was a product of the School of Antioch’s approach to biblical exegesis—that is, an approach that yielded precise descriptions of biblical narratives through the literal approach of interpretation.32 While the literal approach has its merits in producing accurate images of biblical events, a sole reliance on this approach fails to uncover the fullness of the truth of divine revelation with its lack of attention to the spiritual meaning of the Word of God.

For example, Newman critiqued Chrysostom’s 44th homily on the Gospel of Matthew for charging Our Lady with the sin or weakness of vainglory for searching for Jesus when he was busy preaching (Matt 12:46–50).33 Nicolas Gregoris suggests that St. John Chrysostom believed that Mary was trying to control Jesus or obstruct his salvific work through her interruption.34 First, Newman interpreted St. John Chrysostom’s error as understanding Mary’s vainglory to be a defect of her female nature and not necessarily a sin on her part.35 Second, Newman explained that St. John Chrysostom may have lacked full understanding of Mary’s role in the Evangelical Dispensation, because of his relationship with the Antiochene School, not only because of its restricted literal approach to biblical exegesis, but because it had been influenced by the heresy of Arianism.36 Newman understood that context, such as St. John Chyrsostom’s relationship with the Antiochene School, is an important factor when trying to understand the writings of the church fathers and Doctors of the Universal Church.

Although Newman critiqued certain aspects of St. John Chrysostom’s works, he nonetheless considered him to be “par excellence the Commentator of the Church.”37 Newman identified a key attribute of many Doctors of the Universal Church in St. John Chrysostom—that is, the ability to discern truth from error. Newman knew that the exceptionally beautiful, true, words coming from the lips of the Golden Mouth continue to instruct, reverberate across time and space, and resonate with the universal church today. Through his analysis of St. John Chrysostom’s works, Newman, nevertheless, highlighted that the teachings of the great teachers of the Church are imperfect.

The Virgin Mary

Newman revered the Blessed Virgin Mary to be an icon of the Doctors of the Universal Church. In an Anglican sermon on the Feast of the Purification in 1843, Newman proclaimed:

Thus St. Mary is our pattern of Faith, both in the reception and in the study of Divine Truth. She does not think it enough to accept, she dwells upon it; not enough to possess, she uses it; not enough to assent, she developes it; not enough to submit the Reason, she reasons upon it; not indeed reasoning first, and believing afterwards, with Zacharias, yet first believing without reasoning, next from love and reverence, reasoning after believing. And thus she symbolizes to us, not only the faith of the unlearned, but of the Doctors of the Church, who have to investigate, and weigh, and define as well as to profess the Gospel; to draw the line between truth and heresy, to anticipate or remedy the various aberrations of wrong reason.38

To Newman, Mary’s pattern of Faith was superior to the other Doctors of the Church because she believed first. In contrast, the minds of St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom were clouded by reason. St. Augustine failed to believe in God and was under the spell of the rationalistic thought of Manichaeism before he was gifted with the grace needed to convert towards God. Moreover, Newman highlighted how St. John Chrysostom was influenced too heavily by the reasoning of the literal approach to biblical exegesis which hindered his thought from shining as brightly and fully as it could have.

Even the understanding of the Doctors of the Universal Church was limited. Like the Doctors of the Universal Church who uncovered more fully some mysteries of the Catholic faith, Mary continued to ponder and reflect on the Divine Word. Yet, Mary’s understanding was unique, because she was able to respond with perfect faith and trust. She was always full of grace and free from the stain of sin, two conditions which allowed her to consent to the divine will, despite not possessing complete understanding of the divine mysteries. Newman understood that Mary’s fiat was not merely a passive acceptance of divine revelation.39 Her fiat demonstrated a right relationship between faith and reason as she believed first and then reflected deeply on the Divine Word. Thus even as an Anglican, Newman esteemed Mary as an icon of the great teachers of the Church as her faith and reason exemplify what it means to be a Doctor of the Universal Church.40

Conclusion

Newman’s veneration and deep investigation into the teachings of these saints help us to understand what it means to be a Doctor of the Universal Church. Just as Newman understood St. John Chrysostom’s understanding of the Virgin Mary to be flawed, Ryan Marr rightly asserts that Newman’s writings should be taken with a critical eye.41 The theologies of saints and Doctors of the universal church are not infallible, but illuminate the truth of divine revelation in a new way.42 Newman’s writings offered a deeper and new perspective on such topics as the development of doctrine, conscience, education, and the role of the laity in the Church. It has not yet been announced whether Newman will receive a unique Latin title like St. Augustine or St. Cyril of Jerusalem when he is named a Doctor, but there is not a shortage of options of special names to choose from based on the breadth and depth of topics this polymath touched upon during his lifetime.

Despite the bounds of the knowledge of the St. Augustine, St. John Chrysostom, and St. John Henry Newman, they, along with Mary, are luminaries who continue to guide us to deeper understanding of the Christian faith. Newman understood that the teachings of the great Doctors of the Church were imperfect but knew he still could learn much from them and that it was by the grace of God and the intercession of the universal church that their teachings continue to impart the truth of divine revelation. Let us celebrate the momentous occasion of St. John Henry Newman becoming a Doctor of the Universal Church. May the Church continue to learn from Newman’s wisdom as it radiates divine revelation. May the flame of St. John Henry Newman’s teachings persist and continue to shine through the darkness of the errors of the world.

1 The three necessary conditions to being named a Doctor of the Universal Church are: eminens doctrina (eminent teaching), insignis vitae sanctitas (remarkable holy life), and Ecclesiae declaratio (declaration of the Church). Consequently, the first step to being named a Doctor of the Universal Church is to be canonized as a saint. Then, the Dicastery for the Causes of Saints decides whether the saint will be bestowed with the title after the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith has deliberated about the value of the saint’s teaching. “Dicastery for the Causes of Saints,” Vatican News; “Doctors of the Church,” Catholic Answers.

2 James Bradley, “A Sermon on Newman as a Saint,” Newman Review.

3 It was through reading Joseph Milner’s second volume of the History of the Church of Christ (1795) in 1816 that Newman was first introduced to the Church Fathers and developed an appreciation for them. Benjamin King, Newman and the Alexandrian Fathers: Shaping Doctrine in Nineteenth-Century England (Oxford University Press, 2009), 2; Newman, Apo, 7.

4 These seventeen Church Fathers who have been named Doctors of the Universal Church are: St. Irenaeus (120–220), St. Athanasius (295–373), St. Ephrem the Syrian (306–373), St. Hilary (315–368), St. Cyril of Jerusalem (315–387), St. Basil the Great (330–379), St. Gregory of Nazianzen (330–390), St. Ambrose (340–397), St. John Chrysostom (345–507), St. Jerome (345–420), St. Augustine (354–430), St. Cyril of Alexandria (376–444), St. Leo the Great (390–461), St. Peter Chrysologus (400–450), St. Gregory the Great (540–604), St. Isidore of Seville (560–636), and St. John Damascene (676–749). Marcellino D’Ambrosio indicates that there are sixteen saints who are considered both a Church Father and a Doctor of the Universal Church, but this list contains seventeen. Marcellino D'Ambrosio, “Doctors of the Catholic Church—Definition and Complete List,” Crossroads Initiative.

5 Philip Kosloski, “Why St. Augustine is Called the ‘Doctor of Grace,’” Aleteia; Nicolas Lablanca, “Five Doctors of the Church You May Not Know,” Ascension.

6 Geertjan Zuijdwegt, An Evangelical Adrift: The Making of John Henry Newman’s Theology (The Catholic University of America Press, 2022), 19.

7 Zuijdwegt, An Evangelical Adrift, 19.

8 St. Augustine, Confessions, Book 2, Ch. 4, New Advent.

9 Newman, Mix (Longmans, Green, 1907), 53.

10 Albert Camus, Metaphysics and Neoplatonism (University of Missouri Press, 2007), 116.

11 Newman, Mix, 53.

12 Newman, Mix, 54.

13 Newman, Mix, 55.

14 Newman, Mix, 55–56.

15 Newman, Mix, 56.

16 Newman, Mix, 56.

17 Newman, “Intellect, the Instrument of Religious Training,” OS (1856), 3.

18 Newman, “Intellect, the Instrument of Religious Training,” OS, 3.

19 Newman, “Intellect, the Instrument of Religious Training,” OS, 3.

20 Newman, “Intellect, the Instrument of Religious Training,” OS, 2.

21 Newman, “Intellect, the Instrument of Religious Training,” OS, 4.

22 Newman, “Communicated Articles: Ancient Saints,” The Rambler (May 1859): 338; Newman, HS, 234.

23 “Saint John Chrysostom, the Golden Mouth,” Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception.

24 Frances Young, “Interpretation of Scripture,” in The Oxford Handbook Early Christian Studies, eds. Susan Ashbrook Harvey and David G. Hunter (Oxford University Press, 2008), 852. St. John Chrysostom’s homilies were recorded by a notarii in the audience. Wendy Mayer, “Catecheses and Homilies,” in The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Biblical Interpretation, eds. Paul M. Blowers and Peter W. Martens (Oxford University Press, 2019), 250; Wendy Mayer, “Homiletics,” in The Oxford Handbook Early Christian Studies, 575.

25 Scott Hahn, Scripture Matters: Essays on Reading the Bible from the Heart of the Church (Emmaus Road, 2003), 48.

26 Daniel Sheerin, “Eucharistic Liturgy,” in The Oxford Handbook Early Christian Studies, 722.

27 Newman, “Communicated Articles: Ancient Saints,” 340.

28 Newman, “Communicated Articles: Ancient Saints,” 339–40. For example, in his, In Praise of Saint Paul, Chrysostom aimed to understand the person of St. Paul, and this required giving of his whole self to the process, which resulted in powerful, enduring descriptions of St. Paul which resonated with his listeners. Judith L. Kovacs, “Paul the Apostle,” in The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Biblical Interpretation, 622–23.

29 Newman, “Communicated Articles: Ancient Saints,” 341.

30 Many of St. John Chrysostom’s sermons focused on ethical themes. Chrysostom perceived himself to be a psychagogue (“trainer of souls”) of the time whose aim was to instruct others on virtue, theosis, and healing of the soul. Mayer, “Catecheses and Homilies,” 245, 249; Frances Young, “Divine Discourse: Scripture in the Economy of Revelation,” in The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Biblical Interpretation, 86.

31 Newman, “Communicated Articles: Ancient Saints,” 341.

32 John C. Cavadini, “From Letter to Spirit: The Multiple Senses of Scripture,” in The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Biblical Interpretation, 142.

33 Newman, Letter to Pusey, 135–46. The Church had not yet developed a full understanding of Mary’s Immaculate Conception. The dogma of Mary’s Immaculate Conception, which defined Mary to be “ever absolutely free from of all stain of sin, all fair and perfect,” was not promulgated until 1854 by Pope Pius IX in the papal bull Ineffabilis Deus.

34 Nicholas L. Gregoris, “The Daughter of Eve Unfallen”: Mary in the Theology and Spirituality of John Henry Newman (Newman House, 2003), 263.

35 Newman, Letter to Pusey, 136.

36 Newman, Letter to Pusey, 144–45.

37 Newman, Letter to Pusey (Longmans, Green, Reader, and Dyer, 1866), 142.

38 Newman, “The Theory of Developments in Religious Doctrine,” US (Longmans, Green, 1896), 313–14.

39 Newman, “The Theory of Developments in Religious Doctrine,” US, 313.

40 When the Angel Gabriel appeared to Mary at the Annunciation, he referred to her as kecharitomene (Lk. 1:28). This Greek term indicates Mary is already found with grace before she gives her fiat and thus is completely holy at the time of the Annunciation. Origen and St. Ambrose made it explicit that Mary is the only person in the Bible to be described as kecharitomene. Bertrand Buby, Mary of Galilee, vol. 1: Mary in the New Testament (Alba House, 1994), 71–72.

41 Ryan J. Marr, “To Be Perfect is to Have Changed Often”: The Development of John Henry Newman’s Ecclesiological Outlook, 1845–1877 (Lexington Books/Fortress Academic, 2018), 151.

42 Marr, To Be Perfect is to Have Changed Often, 151.