In his writings, Richard Ibranyi accuses St. John Chrysostom of heresy:
The Hellenization of Christianity, Ibranyi, 2019, ‘Heretic John Chrysostom (c.347-407)’, pp. 78-79: John Chrysostom was a heretic for accusing the Blessed Virgin Mary of committing the mortal sins of pride, vanity, rebellion, and disrespect to her son Jesus. For example,
Heretic John Chrysostom, Homily 44 [on Matthew]: “For in fact that which she [Mary] had essayed to do was of superfluous vanity in that she wanted to show the people that she hath power and authority over her Son, imagining not as yet anything great concerning him: whence also her unseasonable approach.”
Ibranyi's conclusion is incorrect here, regarding mortal sin. St. John's opinion is that the Blessed Virgin had a minor fault, to the same degree the Apostles had, as explained further below. This is an error, not a heresy. The true Church believes Christ's mother never sinned, as proclaimed in her Liturgies. Ibranyi's error comes from his own heretical beliefs in Mary's "Immaculate Conception". and that Original Sin is Actual Sin.
The point of Saint John Chrysostom’s homily is to show that only supernatural virtue is of value; that it is faith in Christ, rather than lineage, status or even natural virtue, that avails to salvation. This is evident in the beginning of the homily:
Saint John Chrysostom, Homily 44 (on Matthew): “That which I was lately saying, that when virtue is wanting all things are vain, this is now also pointed out very abundantly. For I indeed was saying, that age and nature, and to dwell in the wilderness, and all such things, are alike unprofitable, where there is not a good mind; but today we learn in addition another thing, that even to have borne Christ in the womb, and to have brought forth that marvelous birth, has no profit, if there be not virtue...He says, ‘who is my mother, and who are my brethren?’ And this He said, not as being ashamed of His mother, nor denying her that bare Him; for if He had been ashamed of her, He would not have passed through that womb; but as declaring that she has no advantage from this, unless she do all that is required to be done. For in fact that which she [Mary] had essayed to do was of superfluous vanity in that she wanted to show the people that she hath power and authority over her Son, imagining not as yet anything great concerning him: whence also her unseasonable approach...”
The “superfluous vanity” of Mary pertains to her focus on the natural authority of a mother regarding her son (as Christ’s human mother, she justly claimed authority over Him), which does not pertain to salvation. St. John Chrysostom writes that, like the Apostles, she perhaps did not yet realize Jesus was fully God and fully man. Yet, Chrysostom says “Christ was not ashamed of her”, which implies she had not actually sinned. So, Chrysostom is not accusing Mary of mortal sin, but of disordered thinking as the result of concupiscence, since it was never a dogma of the Church that Mary was preserved from Original Sin. (If she did not have a fallen nature, then what nature did Christ take upon Himself to redeem?) It is evident that "Immaculate Conception" not taught from the beginning, because early theological discussions were concerned with the point in which the Blessed Virgin was sanctified, as well as the nature of her sanctification. Was it in the womb, like St. John the Baptist? Was is at the Angel Gabriel's greeting? Or was it the moment Christ entered her womb? (Errors concerning the nature of Original Sin are the result of Rome's adoption of the scholastic Absolute Divine Simplicity heresy.)
The theme of virtue over nature, or being earthly-minded, runs through Chrysostom's homilies on the Gospel of St. Matthew. For example:
Saint John Chrysostom, Homily 9 (on Matt. 2:16): “For what were the sons of Samuel advantaged, tell me, by their father’s nobleness, when they were not heirs of their father’s virtue? And what profit had Moses’ sons, not having emulated his perfection?” Therefore neither did they inherit the dominion; but whilst they enrolled him as their father, the rule of the people passed away to another, to him who had become his son in the way of virtue.”
To say Mary had a disordered thought does not mean she had committed a mortal sin, but a lack of supernatural virtue in continuing to focus on the natural affiliation to her Son. Therefore, St. Chrysostom’s opinion is erroneous at best. Later in his homily, the Saint says Mary did have virtue. Regarding Christ’s reply, “Who is My mother, and My Brethren?”, he explains:
Saint John Chrysostom, Homily 44: “He reproved...to lead them on by little and little to the right idea concerning Himself, and to convince her that He was not her Son only, but also her Lord: so wilt thou perceive that the reproof is in the highest degree both becoming Him and profitable to her, and withal having in it much gentleness. For He said not, “Go thy way, tell my mother, thou art not my mother,” but He addresses Himself to the person that told Him; saying, “Who is my mother?” together with the things that have been mentioned providing for another object also. What then is that? That neither they nor others confiding in their kindred, should neglect virtue. For if she is nothing profited by being His mother, were it not for that quality in her [her own virtue], hardly will any one else be saved by his kindred. For there is one only nobleness, to do the will of God.”
Therefore, St. John Chrysostom’s aim regarding Mary is to show that it is not her position of Mother that is in itself virtuous, but that her virtue lies in continually choosing to do God’s will.
If Saint John Chrysostom is a heretic for thinking Mary had an imperfect thought, then one must also condemn Saint Cyril of Alexandria, the great defender of the Faith against the Nestorians, whose writings are central to the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon:
Saint Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John, Book 12: “For, doubtless, some such train of thought as this passed through her mind: ‘I conceived Him That is mocked upon the Cross. He said, indeed, that He was the true Son of Almighty God, but it may be that He was deceived; He may have erred when He said: I am the Life. How did His crucifixion come to pass? and how was He entangled in the snares of His murderers? How was it that He did not prevail over the conspiracy of His persecutors against Him? And why does He not come down from the Cross, though He bade Lazarus return to life, and struck all Judaea with amazement by His miracles?" The woman, as is likely, not exactly understanding the mystery, wandered astray into some such train of thought”.
Is St. Cyril accusing Mary of mortal sin, or of a darkened intellect due to Original Sin? Is this an error or a heresy? The Saint did not think Mary had sinned grievously, since his tone is very different here:
Saint Cyril of Alexandria, Homily 11 at The Ecumenical Church at Ephesus: Hail, Mary Theotokos, Virgin-Mother, light bearer, uncorrupt vessel . . . Hail Mary, you are the most precious creature in the whole world; hail, Mary, uncorrupt dove; hail, Mary, inextinguishable lamp; for from you was born the Sun of justice . . . Through you, every faithful soul achieves salvation.
Will Ibranyi add Saint Cyril of Alexandria to his hit list of early Saints and Doctors? He condemns true Saints and Doctors of the Church because he views everything through the two distorted, cracked lenses of Roman Catholicism, and his own made up ecclesiology. In fact, he must condemn most early Fathers because they never held his heresies.