Please explain difference here

[Rae8]

What is the difference between Pauline privilege and Favor of Faith (Petrine Privilege).

Do you always need that petition to go the Pope if the other party to a non baptized marriage refuses to cooperate if the party who desires the dissolution has proven that they (petitioner) were in fact were NOT baptized at time of the marriage? So even if the non-cooperative/non-responsive spouse was OR was not baptized, why should it matter if the other party (petitioner) has proven their own non-baptism?

How does this fall into St. Paul’s instruction?

 

[1ke]

What is the difference between Pauline privilege and Favor of Faith (Petrine Privilege).

Pauline Privilege dissolves a natural marriage when one of the two unbaptized parties becomes baptized and the other (unbaptized party) departs. The act of contracting a new marriage on the part of the now baptized party dissolves the natural marriage.

The Petrine Privilege is an act of the Pope dissolving a natural marriage involving one unbaptized party. See here.

Do you always need that petition to go the Pope if the other party to a non baptized marriage refuses to cooperate if the party who desires the dissolution has proven that they (petitioner) were in fact were NOT baptized at time of the marriage? So even if the non-cooperative/non-responsive spouse was OR was not baptized, why should it matter if the other party (petitioner) has proven their own non-baptism?

How does this fall into St. Paul’s instruction?

I don’t understand your questions entirely. But it seems your main quesiton is does the other party have to participate? Yes.

The unbaptized party must participate because there must be affidavits from witnesses that attest to their unbaptized state. It is not enough that one party participates. Both must prove their baptismal status to invoke favor of the faith.

 

[Rae8]

I don’t understand your questions entirely. But it seems your main quesiton is does the other party have to participate? Yes.

The unbaptized party must participate because there must be affidavits from witnesses that attest to their unbaptized state. It is not enough that one party participates. Both must prove their baptismal status to invoke favor of the faith.

Thank you for your reply. I’m not sure this is entirely correct. From what I have been told, if the non-participating part does NOT participate/respond, only then does the petition go to the Holy Father. If the respondent agrees to participate then it can be done as a Pauline privilege locally.

What I am unclear on, is the scriptural basis for this distinction. If respondent refuses to participate (give proof, etc.) how does the Pope dissolve it? What scripture does he use. I have heard it called a favor of the faith or something similar. That he does it as a favor for the intended Catholic spouse.
(I think I just answered my own question )

That link was very interesting and helpful.

 

[1ke]

Thank you for your reply. I’m not sure this is entirely correct. From what I have been told, if the non-participating part does NOT participate/respond, only then does the petition go to the Holy Father. If the respondent agrees to participate then it can be done as a Pauline privilege locally.

The Pauline Privilege involves two unbaptized parties. The Pope is not involved with the Pauline Privilege.

What I am unclear on, is the scriptural basis for this distinction. If respondent refuses to participate (give proof, etc.) how does the Pope dissolve it?

The Petrine Privilege is an extension of the Pauline Privilege, and is based on the Pope’s authority. The Pope has the authority/ability to dissolve a natural marriage involving a baptized and unbaptized party.

The favor of the faith cannot be used if the respondent party does not cooperate or cannot be located.

In such a case, the petitioner would have to petition for a declaration of nullity, a full tribunal case.

 

[dans0622]

… The favor of the faith cannot be used if the respondent party does not cooperate or cannot be located.

In such a case, the petitioner would have to petition for a declaration of nullity, a full tribunal case.

Hello,

On the contrary, it may so happen that the Respondent Party is absent from the process and is declared to be such (see art. 15.2 of the norms to which you linked earlier). I think the last Petrine case I was assigned to as Defender (or the one before that) involved an absent Respondent.

Dan

 

[1ke]

Hello,

On the contrary, it may so happen that the Respondent Party is absent from the process and is declared to be such (see art. 15.2 of the norms to which you linked earlier). I think the last Petrine case I was assigned to as Defender (or the one before that) involved an absent Respondent.

Dan

Thank you for correcting that.

I thought the respondent had to provide information, at least in writing, for the privilege case to move forward, but not a regular nullity case.

 

[Rae8]

Hello,

On the contrary, it may so happen that the Respondent Party is absent from the process and is declared to be such (see art. 15.2 of the norms to which you linked earlier). I think the last Petrine case I was assigned to as Defender (or the one before that) involved an absent Respondent.

Dan

Thank you for clearing that up. Its what I had been told but it can get confusing.