Talk:Pauline privilege
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Controversy
Most -- although not all -- of the references I found to the "Pauline Privilege" were written from the Catholic point of view. I was not able to determine:
- the position of Eastern Orthodoxy
- the position of specific Protestant denominations
I included a link to a Messianic Jewish statement, but I don't know if that is representative.
It goes without saying, but please fill in if you can. -- Shunpiker 04:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- I am unaware of any Protestant community that formally uses Pauline Privilege. Is anyone aware of a formal practive outside Catholicism? I think the Orthodox use the same understanding as Roman Catholicism.DaveTroy 16:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Contradiction?
- The Pauline Privilege does not apply when either of the partners was a Christian at the time of marriage. Under Catholicism, the Petrine Privilege may be invoked if only one of the partners was baptized at the time of marriage
These two sentences are contradictory. First it doesn't apply (according to whom?) and then it applies if only one of the partner's were baptized. Then there are the questions - Is it grounds for a catholic to invoke the Petrine Priveledge if their spouse leaves the faith? And I presume that a Catholic who makes a (civil) marriage to an unbeliever could later remarry a Catholic. Is that right?
There is no contradiction: Notice that two separate privileges are being discussed, Pauline and Petrine.
Question 1. If two baptized persons marry, then the Petrine privilege can never apply, even if one party later leaves the faith.
Question 2. A Catholic who makes a civil marriage, to anyone, can later remarry in the Church, because the civil marriage is not considered valid due to "lack of form". -- Cat Whisperer 23:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- ad primum: The Petrine privilege says that the Pope can freely dispose of a purely natural marriage. This is a divorce, not an annulment -- the only divorce that is accepted in the Catholic Church. Thus it can never apply to a marriage between two baptized persons, as this is per se sacramental. Ad secundum: Under current sacramental theology, as I understand it, a civil marriage between baptized persons is illicit but valid, since the sacrament is dispensed by the two parties of the marriage, not the priest. A civilly married and divorced person cannot contract marriage in the Catholic Church without an annulment proceeding. If one of the parties was not baptized, the Pauline privilege can be invoked, thus avoiding a lengthy annulment process. The Petrine privilege is very seldom invoked in practice. 62.101.102.226 12:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- ad primum it is more accurat to say that Petrine Priv. is a dissolution of a valid natural marriage, a divorce is a civil action disposing of a civil contract, secundum: I think you're confusing the question of form and sacramental theology. You're correct, between two baptized people a marriage is either a sacrament or invalid. Canonical form, however, applies to Catholics unless dispensed, as CatWisperer notes above. Therefore, if a Catholic were to marry a Protestant, in a civil wedding, without the dispensation of Canonical Form, the marriage would be invalid. If a Baptist were to marry a Baptist in a civil wedding, the marriage is presumably valid, as they have no requirement for Canonical form. This is discussed at great length in the section on annulments.DaveTroy 20:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] A Different Interpretation
As a believing Christian who reserves the right to think, I interpret the so-called Pauline privilege differently. I think "unbelieving partner" includes a partner who does not believe in his or her spouse or in the marriage itself. In other words, it means ending the marriage (or declaring there never was really a marriage) on the basis of what, in secular terms, would be called incompatibility betwixt the two spouses. Tom129.93.17.139 (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)