I have heard several times that Orthodoxy considers a marriage between man and woman as lasting beyond death in same way and being eternal.

I am wondering if someone can explain to me what is meant by that.

Robert

Marriage in Orthodoxy has an eternal characteristic because love endures.

However the physical aspect of making love and bearing children will not be part of heaven. Now maybe the Mormons and Muslims will take issue here.

This iw exactly what the Melkite Church teaches. Even some Roman Catholics believe this.

The bonds of the Holy Mysteries are not severed by death. Rather, like all things, they will be transformed. So, just as our physical bodies are transformed by the Resurrection, so too will our marital bond be transformed. Remember, marriage has as it's aim to bring each other to prefection so as to reach Heaven. We are called to live deification and thw work of theosis BY our Marriage.

The Mystery of Holy Crowing is much more than just bearing and rearing children. I invite everyone to acutally read the text for the celebration of this Holy Mystery and see for themselves.

Have there been attempts by Eastern theologians to compare and contrast (or present as complementary) the Latin and Eastern doctrines of marriage?

That does sound mysterious - although there is an Irish folk notion that ever since the Resurrection the roosters are announcing "Mac na hOige Slan!"

To get serious, I suggest Father John Meyendorff's book on matrimony, available from SVS press. Meanwhile, one should notice that the canonical prohibition on major clerics attempting a second marriage, and the Church's clear disapproval of second marriages (allowed for lay people only as an act of ekonomia) teaches us something.

Fr. Serge

Oh, that misspelling again. Good catch, Father.
And the Holy Rooster call.

We have a huge flock of crows here in Los Angeles.
If we park our cars underneath the telephone lines where they roost, our car turns white and purple. They love berries.

It is getting late. In fact, it is 5 minutes to midnight.

That reminds me when my son was chrismated, I accidentally said that he was cremated, and then wondered why people looked so horrified.

The day of my chrismation a non christian friend of mine called to enquire what time my "crucifixion" was..... yikes.

DOUBLE !!

(seems like too many Americans are following the 'Archie Bunker' school of vocabulary words these days!..
Those who were old enough to walk and talk in the 1970's will know what I am alluding to *WINK*)

Alice, either I am too young (which I doubt) or too slow to get what you are alluding to.
Stephanos I

When Archie Bunker tried using words that were a bit larger, he always messed them up and ended up using another word which sounded alike but whose meaning had absolutely no bearing or semblance of sense to the context of his sentence...for instance, he could have easily said the above two posts, ie: 'cremated' instead of 'chrismated'.

Hope this explains it!

In Christ,
Alice

I always remember Archie Bunker when someone mentions the Gynecologist. Archie would always call these physicians 'Groinacologists.'

Fr David Straut

Dear Alice,

I have not been the only one to use "cremated" instead of "Chrismated." One of my fellow choir members excitedly told us that her new son-in-law had just been cremated, and I knew that she also had pulled a slip of the tongue. She turned red in the face, and said, "I should have known better, but in our Greek family we rarely have Chrismations, because our babies are baptized a few months after their birth, and of course the baby is chrismated, but we refer to it as a baptism."

Father Serge,

My wife and I were crowed. Were we supposed to be Crowned?

Back to the original topic ...

A sweet picture of my marriage --

One of us would say to the other: I love you.
The other would reply: Always and forever.
Unto ages of ages.
Amen!

This little exchange now extends to the next generation, having become part of my goodnight ritual with my boys.

Having thus affirmed my belief in the eternal nature of love and marriage, my absolute knowledge that death does not sever the bond between my husband and me ... I really struggle with (quoting Fr. Serge) "the Church's clear disapproval of second marriages (allowed for lay people only as an act of ekonomia)."

It always felt harsh to me, and it seems doubly harsh to me now that I am widowed. I ask for some further understanding of this disapproval.

We acknowledge that it is not good to be alone, that part of the human condition is a strong need to have a partner in life (and yes, in the bedroom). By marrying, I acknowledged that I am not among those to whom the gift of joyful celibacy has been given. Yet my husband died when I was only 43 and I can expect to live another 40 years. The Church would prefer that I live alone for those 40 years.

We acknowledge that children need two parents, a mother and a father. While my children -- now ages 6 and 10 -- know that their father continues to love them and watch over them and pray for them ... they need the physical presence of a loving man in their daily lives. In today's loose-knit society, even attentive uncles, godparents, or family friends are a poor substitute. (Have you ever tried to teach a boy to tie a half-Windsor, using only illustrations found on the internet?!) Yet the church would prefer that I not bring a faithful, loving role model and guide into my household.

We acknowledge that it is best for children to have one parent in the home full time. Scripture is very clear in making the care of widows and orphans the duty of the entire society. On the small village and town level, that works reasonably well, but it falls apart in an urban society. I have struggled financially because of my decision to continue to stay home and care for my boys in the wake of their father's death. Yet the church would prefer that I not remarry, not bring much-needed income into the house.

I totally understand the theological and sacramental nature of marriage. Would one of our clergy please explain to me the Church's opposition to a second marriage from a pastoral standpoint? I don't want you to say that the Church would allow me to remarry (should the right man materialize on my doorstep); I know that. I want to understand why the Church's initial response is disapproval, why the Church's blessing comes only unwillingly and in exigent circumstances of "ekonomia."

-- Alicia, who is not trying to be difficult