Perry and Kendall on Post-Nicene Eastern Church Fathers Evidencing a Lower Mariology than Modern Dogmatic Catholic Theology

 

Far from being an exception to the rule that all have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory [in the theology of post-Nicene Eastern Fathers], Mary’s exceptional status is the result of a gift of purifying grace at or before the Incarnation (Gregory of Nyssa, Letter XVII: To Eustathia, Ambrosia, and Basilissa [NPNF² 5: 199–2000]). Even Cyril could ascribe not only ignorance and doubt to her, but even suggests that she was scandalized by the humiliation of her Son at the cross (Cyril of Alexandria, A Commentary upon the Gospel According to S. Luke, pp. 27–28). The most explicit criticism comes from John Chrysostom. Not only does he speak freely of Mary’s distance from Jesus as set out in the Gospels (John Chrysostom, St. John Chrysostom: Commentary on the Psalms 1, trans. Robert Charles Hill [Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1998], p. 351), but he also suggests that her actions at Cana (John 2:1–12) display dispositions toward both vanity and pride (On Mary’s vanity, see John Chrysostom, “Homily XLIV,” 1 [NPNF¹ 10: 278–79]; though the reference is to John 2, Chrysostom is actually expounding upon Matthew 12:46–50. And on pride, consult John Chrysostom, “Homily on St. John XXI,” 2, in Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of St. John and the Epistle to the Hebrews [NPNF¹ 14: 74]). (Tim Perry and Daniel Kendall, The Blessed Virgin Mary (Guides to Theology; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2013], 32, comment in square bracket added for clarification)