*****
Origen, although he ascribed to Mary high spiritual prerogatives, thought that, at the time of Christ's passion, the sword of disbelief pierced Mary's soul; that she was struck by the poniard of doubt; and that for her sins also Christ died (Origen, "In Luc. hom. xvii").
In the same manner St. Basil writes in the fourth century: he sees in the sword, of which Simeon speaks, the doubt which pierced Mary's soul (Epistle 260).
St. Chrysostom accuses her of ambition, and of putting herself forward unduly when she sought to speak to Jesus at Capharnaum (Matthew 12:46; Chrysostom, Homily 44 on Matthew).
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
I have to look in to St John Crysostom.
St Basil seems to be making an awkward comparison, which if taken the wrong way would also seem to equate such a sin with fornication, an accusation against the woman St Basil definitely acknowledged as ever-virgin. And while Origen is often cited historically as if he were a Church Father, he (or at least his work) was in fact condemned as heretical and anathematized. (I like to believe it was actually just his writing, because he seems sincere and errs out of ignorance, but maybe there was more to it than we now know.)
St John pointedly notes that Jesus doesn’t condemn Mary by excluding her from the saved, but merely expands the concept to says that everyone who does his work is saved. It’s actually a nice, early explanation of the Catholic answer to Sola Fides that we are saved by grace through faith confirmed in works... except he does so with an example that certainly seems to proclaim the Blessed Virgin Mary to be a sinner.
Herein, I may have spoken inaccurately. I was trying to emphasize that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception isn’t simply that Mary was sinless, and that indeed the Eastern churches hold that Mary was sinless even if they’ve declined to define Original Sin in the way that they see as leading to the errors of Luther and Calvin. The “unanimous doctrine” specifically is that Mary was born without sin.
I’m very surprised if St John Chrysostom believes Mary committed sin. But I think it’s important to draw a distinction: Catholics believe we’re all pretty much perpetually committing VENIAL sins. Unlike MORTAL sins, they are not conscious decisions to rebel against God, they don’t risk your condemnation, and they don’t require reconciliation with the Church.
It appears St John Chrysostom is talking about a venial sin; he even explicitly says Mary was not condemned and then goes on to say that she obeyed Jesus and that anyone who obeys him is his mother and family. Nonetheless, it IS quite surprising to see someone like him make such an example of even venial sin out of the Blessed Virgin Mary.