[xzins]

If Paul was alive, of course we would listen to him, but not in opposition to the Church, but because he is part of the Church.

And, since we have the words of an Apostle, those words have greater weight than any words from ANY source that might ensue and contradict the Apostle.

Those who have verified the words as coming from the Apostle are under the authority of the Apostle once they've verified those words.

As in the days of Josiah when the words of the Law were discovered. The words of God had greater weight than that of Hilkiah and the other priests who found them. (Of course...the hope is that they would submit themselves to the already revealed truth, and there would be unity.)

[Conservative til I die]

And, since we have the words of an Apostle, those words have greater weight than any words from ANY source that might ensue and contradict the Apostle.

Those who have verified the words as coming from the Apostle are under the authority of the Apostle once they've verified those words.

As in the days of Josiah when the words of the Law were discovered. The words of God had greater weight than that of Hilkiah and the other priests who found them. (Of course...the hope is that they would submit themselves to the already revealed truth, and there would be unity.)

You will not find much of an argument from me here. The point I am trying to make is that there's this false dichotomy set up that we must follow Paul in opposition to the Church, when of course Paul was and still is part of the Church. Many Protestants view the Catholic Church as just another sect, a different brand name so to speak; when in fact there was only one Church and it was Catholic.

[Kolokotronis]

Padre, you wrote:

" And, since we have the words of an Apostle, those words have greater weight than any words from ANY source that might ensue and contradict the Apostle.

Those who have verified the words as coming from the Apostle are under the authority of the Apostle once they've verified those words."

The rub comes from who or what determines the weight and meaning of the words of +Paul or the other writers of the NT. If Paul himself were to return today and preach a new gospel, preach something other than that which the Church always and everywhere has believed, let us say that Christ was not born of a virgin or that the Eucharist is only a symbolic memorial of the Last Supper, or that the hierarchal system of The Church was not ordained by God, he would be condemned and rightly so.

"Even if the whole universe holds communion with the [heretical] patriarch, I will not communicate with him. For I know from the writings of the holy Apostle Paul: the Holy Spirit declares that even the angels would be anathema if they should begin to preach another Gospel, introducing some new teaching. +Maximos the Confessor

What the reformers of the 16th Century did, and their Protestant descendants to this day are doing, is "...introducing some new teaching", unknown to the One Church. In fact, certain mainline Protestant groups actually proclaim that the Holy Spirit is doing a "new thing" to justify their innovations.

At least that is how it appears to Orthodoxy, Padre.