I was Facebooking today when I ran across a post in which an Orthodox Christian wished Memory Eternal to someone who had died. The Orthodox blogosphere struck within the first two comments. The person was promptly reprimanded for daring to pray Memory Eternal on behalf of a non-Orthodox. In full dudgeon, the poster accused the person of violating the Canons of the Church. When someone else tried to respond to the poster, they were jointly accused with the poster of being a compromiser with the world. The poster ended up apologizing.
However, this left me thinking. Was the accuser correct? I have been in ministry for many years and am now an Archpriest, yet I have never heard that the canons forbid desiring Memory Eternal for the non-Orthodox. This does not mean I am correct since I keep finding details of doctrine or the canons that I had not realized were there. Yet, Fr. Andrew (Damick) does warn us of the dangers of the Orthodox online blogosphere. In a quite readable article, Fr. Andrew warns, “7) the google school of theology is often assumed to trump real theological training and pastoral experience.”1
So, what is Memory Eternal? Well, briefly: “What did the thief ask for on the cross: ‘Lord remember me … when thou comest into thy kingdom.’ He asks to be remembered, and that is all. … In other words, to be remembered by the Lord is the same thing as ‘to be in paradise.’ ‘To be in paradise’ is to be in eternal memory. … In the same way [as the thief on the Cross – ed.] after dismissal in the Office of the Burial of the laity, the bishop or the first priest proclaims … ‘Eternal Memory.'”2
May that prayer/request for Eternal Memory be offered for the non-Orthodox? There are two schools of thought, with probably a large middle. They would be “no” and “yes” with a sizeable unsure middle. The “no” school is faithfully represented and explained by Fr. John Whiteford in the post, “Memory Eternal,” on his blog, “Stump the Priest.”3 In his post, he points out that St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco did allow for the singing of Memory Eternal for especially worthy non-Orthodox.
At the other end is His Eminence, Benjamin, Archbishop of San Francisco and the West, who published an “Order of Burial for Non-Orthodox Christians.”4 That order is noteworthy for two reasons. He holds the same Archbishopric of San Francisco as St. John, cited above. He came to a different conclusion than St. John. His order ends with Memory Eternal being sung for the non-Orthodox. Though St. John was ROCOR and His Eminence, Benjamin, is OCA, both jurisdictions have St. Tikhon of Moscow as their joint Father in Christ. Yet, they ended up with different opinions. It is also noteworthy that neither one cited those supposedly violated canons, if we dare say Memory Eternal for a non-Orthodox person.5
The Greek Archdiocese only permits the Trisagion Prayers for the Dead to be said for the non-Orthodox. A funeral is not permitted, only a memorial service.6 Chaplains, particularly military chaplains, are allowed to conduct a memorial service that is basically a funeral by another name. For the GOA and the AOC, it is a recognition that certain circumstances require economia. What I do not find is the heavy citing of the canons by the actual jurisdictions. Rather, they try to deal with our pastoral situation in North America.
So, what is the conclusion to these many words? The original poster that began all this with his strong reply to the Facebook® post must ask for forgiveness. The supposed banning of Memory Eternal is not as strong as the poster stated. There have been bishops that have had no problem with desiring Memory Eternal for a non-Orthodox. That have been bishops that have considered that inappropriate. Even as great a figure as St. John ended up allowing it to be desired for at least some non-Orthodox.
My conclusion is that I do not know as much about this subject as I wish. Yet, what I know does not lead me to believe that there is as strong a prohibition as that poster implied. What I have researched is that the subject is not as decided as he wishes. As strong a defender of the faith as St. John was moved to mercy and ended up allowing Memory Eternal for at least some non-Orthodox. I think I want to concentrate on the mercy so that I might receive mercy.
- https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/asd/2020/01/01/16-realistic-observations-about-orthodoxy-online/ [↩]
- Florensky, Pavel (2018). The Pillar and Ground of the Truth: An Essay in Orthodox Theodicy in Twelve Letters. Princeton University Press. p. 144. ISBN 978-0-691-18799-0 [↩]
- http://fatherjohn.blogspot.com/2020/09/stump-priest-memory-eternal.html [↩]
- https://www.dowoca.org/PDF/Liturgics/Funeral-for-the-Non-Orthodox-with-Music.pdf [↩]
- Note that His Eminence Benjamin does have several prayers not said that imply that the person being buried is Orthodox, including “Grant rest eternal.” Yet Memory Eternal is openly desired for the person who is being buried. [↩]
- The OCA guidelines agree. Note that the service authorized by His Eminence, Benjamin, is not called a funeral but an Order of Burial. See also the guidelines https://www.oca.org/files/PDF/official/clergyguidelines.pdf [↩]
Padre, long time. Glad you’re still blogging.
Would you say that desiring “memory eternal” is a prayer for the dead?
You have made the rounds, if I remember correctly, from Roman Catholic to Episcopal to Eastern Orthodox. As I understand, the Catholics do pray for the dead, the Episcopalians I’m not really sure, and of the Orthodox all I know is the “memory eternal” phrase.
Most of my life has been in the evangelical camp, and later years baptist, although I’m drifting away from that sort of thing. Prayers for the dead have been not only avoided but discouraged or condemned. Why condemned? Because they are not “biblical?” Or condemned because the Catholics to that, and “anything the Catholics do we will surely never do.” (That’s actually a thing.)
Care to comment on how biblical (or not) prayers for the dead are? And contrast the Catholic with the Episcopal with the Orthodox? And what do we mean by a “cloud of witnesses?”
Thanks.
For both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics, prayer for the dead is Biblical.
2 Maccabees 12:42-46 – And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain. And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection, (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,) And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.
Of course, if one conveniently finds reasons to throw away books with doctrine that is disagreeable, one can maintain one’s beliefs. Luther is rather known for having considered James to be an epistle of straw, for it upset his theology of faith alone. Mind you, so did Ephesians, but that is another matter. Of the Book of Jude, Luther said, “Although I value this book, it is an epistle that need not be counted among the chief books which are supposed to lay the foundations of faith.” To this day, in some countries a Lutheran pastor is allowed to state that he or she does not consider either James or Jude to be a part of the New Testament.
You asked other questions, but I will stop here.
Thanks. I knew that there were verses in the OT Apocrypha, but had forgotten where.
I’m a great believer in the need for a canon, as much out of discipline as anything. But I do believe that inspired writing exists outside of the Bible. Well, it had better, if we’re going to bother praying, “May the words of my mouth be acceptable in thy sight…” before every sermon. But as far as including something into the canon, that’s another level. We should all be on the same page, more or less, toward a common canon. Maccabees? James? Jude? Good people have disagreed. But perhaps we can ignore a few differences and go for the common ground.
Second Timothy 3:16-17 gets used a lot, perhaps overworked. I think keeping the Greek simple, and translating it more like, “All writing [that is] God-breathed [is] useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction…” The word “writing” is graphe, which usually gets translated “Scripture.” But that makes it redundant with “God-breathed” (or God-inspired) which follows it immediately, and can only mean “Scripture” to a modern reader. And it assumes that only the Bible, what we call Holy Scripture, can be inspired. I think we have some wiggle room with other writings that aren’t in the Bible (or are, if you accept the Apocrypha).
For example, I’m a big fan of Julian of Norwich, and find her writings inspired. I wouldn’t look to have them canonized, though. We don’t need to go that far, but we can still get some good theology and inspiration there and elsewhere.