On the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Fathers Who "Denied" Her Sinlessness (Part II):
Part I is located
HERE.
As we noted earlier, doubt in and of itself is not a sin. It is instead accurately defined as "a state in which the mind is suspended between two contradictory propositions and unable to assent to either of them". Now a person who deliberately doubted something that they knew was either true or otherwise probable would by their doubt be guilty of a sin. However, it is to lack in charity to presume that anyone who doubts something is thereby guilty of sin. (Charity after all is not presumptious and it does not think any evil according to the Apostle Paul.) Nor does one who suffers from temptations towards scandal or dispair necessarily sin either because temptation is not in and of itself sinful.
That summarizes the refutation of the arguments of those who bring Origen, St. Basil the Great, or St. Cyril of Alexandria to the stand to testify against the apostolic teaching on the sinlessness of Blessed Mary. It helps those who bring up such stray citations to remember that theology is a developing science.{1}
St. John Chrysostom is often advanced as one who doubted Mary's sinlessness. An actual example of this interaction with a Protestant who denies the sinlessness of Blessed Mary is noted here:
(H. Protestant) [After making the astute observation as per the outlooks on the part of some Catholics, "H. Protestant" focuses on the sinlessness of Mary subject by saying]
Never mind that in this particular case, the view being refuted traces back to St John Chrysostom, hardly an avatar of anti-Catholic bigotry.
(A. Catholic) He believed that Mary sinned, which is contrary to the Orthodoxy that claims him as their own today, to Catholicism, and even much primal Protestantism (e.g., Luther believed in the Immaculate Conception). So it is a view which is out of the orthodox mainstream.
This is true *today* but it was not the case in St. John's time. It does not much benefit the critic of Blessed Mary's sinlessness to cite St. John on this matter (when we explain why this is the case). Nonetheless, it is worth noting that it is possible to espouse an uncommon theological view in classic Christian theology when that position is one that has not been decided by the ecclesiastical magisterium. And in the late fourth and early fifth century, this subject was one where there was a spectrum of opinions. However, there is more to this equation then simply the words of St. John Chrysostrom.
Though he was the Patriarch of Constantinople, St. John was not educated in the theological school of Constantinople. Instead, he was schooled in the Antiochian theological tradition. Though there were some distinctions and certain areas of theological emphasis in the various schools (of Constantinople, of Alexandria, of Antioch, of Rome, etc.) perhaps the most distinct difference was the difference in the Alexandrian and Antiochian traditions.
The difference between the Alexandrian tradition and the Antiochian tradition was the distinction between divinity and humanity of Christ. (The Alexandrians focused more on the divinity of Christ; the Antiochians more on His humanity.) Another notable figure from the Antiochian school was Patriarch Nestorius of Constantinople. (He became Patriarch twenty-one years after the death of St. John.) Another Antiochian theologian was Theodore of Mopsuestia who was to factor into the controversies at the fifth ecumenical council held in 553 AD.
Opposing Nestorius was Patriarch Cyril of the Alexandrian tradition and Pope Celestine of the Roman tradition - which in this case was on the side of the Alexandrians. To explain the view of St. John in part, it is necessary to point out the theological controversy that arose after his death: the controversy over the
Theotokos. In doing this, the distinction between the Antiochian and the Alexandrian traditions can be better understood.
The term
Theotokos was one that had been accepted throughout Christendom except - and this is important to note - the Antiochian school. This is why when the orator Proclus between 428 and 429 preached - in the presence of the recently consecrated and installed Patriarch Nestorius - the sermons on the
Theotokos, he and the faithful in Constantinople were on the same page but to Nestorius this term was foreign to his theological formation. It was also foreign to St. John's theological formation; however as this was a controversy that cropped up after St. John's death, he is held to a different standard than Nestorius was.
Getting back to St. John, it is also important to note in his deprecations of Mary that he was not a speculative theologian in the mould of a St. Augustine, St. Athanasius the Great, St. Gregory the Theologian, or a St. Ambrose. Instead, he was a forerunner of what we would call today the "moral theologian". His primary intention was the application of Christian teaching to everyday life. In doing this, he was not above attributing to Mary personal defects to illustrate to his audience attitudes or problems that needed correcting in their own lives. In the absence of a definitive consensus at the time as to the sinlessness of Mary, his approach was acceptable.
This is not to say that St. John held to a personal view of Mary's sinlessness of course because he probably did not. But failing to account for the elements of the equation that contextualize the statements of St. John is to do his view an injustice. (Albeit most Prots who quote or refer to St. John are not aware that they are doing this.)
To summarize these points again (i) St. John was schooled in the Antiochian tradition focusing more on the humanity of Christ (ii) he carried this over into his outlook which was that of a moral theologian first and foremost - only secondarily was he a speculative theologian (iii) he died before the controversy over the
Theotokos cropped up and (iv) it seems to stretch credulity to presume that St. John would have opposed the judgment of Ephesus. (For he would be contradicting the very principles that he preached on if he were to contradict the judgment of the church on matters of doctrine.)
Evidence that this principle was recognized in him was that the Alexandrian theologians at Ephesus - though disagreeing with him theologically - nonetheless cited him as a witness to their cause. The only way this would have been credibly sustained would be on the basis of his lifelong pattern of obedience to the Church. If this witness was on the basis of his personal theology, it would not have held up - for this is how Nestorius utilized St. John in his own defense at Ephesus.
The judgment of the Church at Ephesus marked a definitive direction for all subsequent Christological discussions on the unity of the divinity and humanity in Christ primarily - and the role of Mary in the economy of salvation taken in and of itself to some extent and not wholly wedded to Christology. The two could never be completely separated of course but Mariological theology received its strongest early impetus from the decision of Ephesus - and later in the sixth century when the Perpetual Virginity of Mary was mentioned by Constantinople II as an accepted fact.
All universal synods of the first millennium from Chalcedon onward explicitly reaffirmed the judgment of Ephesus. In the second millennium the councils likewise did so though generally in a more tacit manner. (Such as promulgating a Profession of Faith where the teaching of Ephesus was manifested.)
So in conclusion, Catholics are at times too quick to dismiss St. John's position because of a preceived incongruity with the consensus of Church history. However, at the same time, Protestants make far too much out of St. John's position. In reality, if all of the factors are taken into account, St. John is actually an ally for the Catholic cause.
Note:
{1} Some Fathers referred to Our Lord as an angel before Nicaea; a term that since Nicaea is theologically unacceptable. I wonder therefore why anyone would think that Marian theology would somehow not be behind Christological theology - particularly since the latter is primarily what the former primarily contributes to.
Labels: Expository Musings, Theological