Well, I had some time here before I go to bed, and I picked two of the "later" Orthodox works that I had readily available. The first, "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology" by Father Michael Pomazansky, has the following to say about the Sacrament of Marriage:
The entrance into a second marriage after the death of a husband or wife, or in general the loss of one's spouse by the other, is allowed by the Church, although in the prayers for those being married the second time, forgiveness is asked for the sin of a second marriage
. A third marriage is tolerated only as a lesser evil to avoid a greater evil
- immoral life (as St. Basil the Great explains).
Perhaps Fr. Pomazansky was not aware of the service for a second marriage, nor was Archbishop Averky who blessed the publication of this work. The work dates from 1963.
In the commentary on St. Matthew by the Blessed Theophylact (lived about 1000 years ago, or 600 years after my previously cited writings), he says:
But I say to you, Christ says, that it is good to divorce as an adulteress a wife who has committed fornication, but if one divorces a wife who has not committed fornication, he becomes in part the cause of adultery for her if she should marry again
BTW - this second work was given to me by one of the Priests that told me that the second marriage ceremony was penitential. I was beginning to feel bad that I may have misunderstood him and falsely attributed my warped views to him. However, since he is the one that translated this work from the Greek to the English and published this work (with the Blessing of Archbishop Alypy), and I was given it shortly after its publication, this could have been the passage that we were discussing at the time. This passage was always explained to me (in the Lutheran Church) as meaning that even the aggrieved party was guilty of adultery in a second marriage, but the sin was upon the party causing the grievance. This is the guidance that we were instructed to use on the Board of Elders in the Wisconsin Synod when deciding Church Discipline. It could be seen that given this understanding of this passage before our conversion (both of us were sons of Lutheran clergy), the interpretation of the passage by the Blessed Theophylact would do little to dispel our former belief. It does not explain Fr. Pomazansky's apparent erroneous understanding of the second and third marriages since I don't believe that he was ever a Lutheran heretic as was I for so many years.
Maybe I just need to go to bed and stop reading Orthodox books and just ask some divorced people what they think next Sunday. I am not sure what a "personal telohranitelj" is, but I am guessing that it is a guardian angel and not my Smith & Wesson, which I don't bring into Church with me