Annotation LVIII

”Behold thy mother and thy brethren,” etc. — Matthew 12:47

Whether the Virgin Mary was guilty of vainglory.

Chrysostom, homily 45 on Matthew, expounding this clause, seems to attribute to the Virgin Mary something of ambition and vainglory, in these words: “From the mother’s action, some importunity accrued. Consider the importunity both of the mother and of the brethren; for whereas they ought to have entered and heard together with the crowds, or at least awaited outside the end of the discourse, and then approached — moved by a certain ambition and ostentation, they called him outside, in the presence of all, that they might be seen easily, and with great power, to command Christ. Whence it is plain that they were moved by a certain vainglory, thinking as yet nothing great about him” — and the rest that follows. And again, in homily 46 on Matthew, praising the prudence of Christ’s disciples, who awaited the opportune time to question the Master, he says: “So [Mary] too, and the brethren, would he have taught to act — not to call [him] outside openly for the sake of ostentation.” The same [Chrysostom], narrating the miracle of the water turned into wine, in homily 20 on John, even more clearly ascribes to her some affection of pride, saying:¹ “For she wished the miracle to be done, that she might conciliate to herself the favor of men, and that she herself might be made more illustrious by [her] son’s grace; and perhaps she was affected by some human affection, just as also his brethren [were], when they said, ‘Show thyself to the world,’ desirous of gaining fame for themselves by his miracles.” And a little later, [saying] the same: “(Since indeed she did not yet have the due opinion of him,) but after the manner of mothers, Mary thought she might by right command her son in all things — when it was [rather] fitting to worship and revere [him] as [her] Lord.”

This passage Euthymius noted among the Greeks, in his commentaries, and did not dare to disapprove [it]; but among the Latins, Thomas [noted it], in the third volume of the Summa Theologica, question 27 — where, civilly excusing Chrysostom, he says that he exceeded out of the impulse of speaking (as sometimes happens to orators and preachers); and that his words can also be so expounded, he says, that we understand Christ to have checked an affection in [his] mother — not one that really was in her, but one which others might perhaps have supposed to be in her. Which excuse we most gladly accept, lest we defraud the Virgin Mother of God of that signal privilege of her integrity, which the appended canon of the Synod of Trent attributes to her: “If anyone shall say that a man once justified can no longer sin, nor lose grace — and therefore that he who falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the contrary, that he can, throughout [his] whole life, avoid all sins all [sins], even venial ones — unless by a special privilege of God, as the Church holds concerning the Blessed Virgin — let him be anathema.”

Theophylact, in the interpretation of this sentence, following the sayings of Chrysostom, must be read with caution in these words: “The mother wished to show something human — namely, that she had power over [her] son; for she did not yet understand anything great about him. For this reason, while he was still speaking, she wished to draw him to herself, as [one] somewhat ambitious, [having] so great a son subject to her. What, then, [did] Christ [do]? Since he knew her intention, hear what he says: ‘Who is my mother?’ — not affecting [his] mother with injury did he say this, but correcting her mind, [which was] greedy of glory and human.” Consult on these [matters] Annotations 103 and 151 of the fifth book, and Annotations 138, 139, 140, and 185 of this book.