Kosta: "I think that was clear from my statement."
Oh no you don't! :) Alex knows the exact same thing that I do. While you accept the Church's teachings on any matter, you DO believe that Paul, as revealed to us in scripture, was WRONG. I have perceived this belief in many of your recent posts. For example, in 13,523 you said:
Fact is, the Church does not teach Paul as the Protestants interpret him because the Church concentrates on other apostolic teachings and find a common denominator or the most prevalent denominator as the orthodox teaching. The protestants simply take Paul as the standard and fit or reject the rest.
... For obvious reasons, the Church will never say that any one of the Apostles was wrong. But at the same time, the Church will not build its theology based on one of them, even an essential one (who also happens to be a controversial self-appointed later-comer whose teachings were not always in synch with the rest).
You don't say the Church interprets Paul another way, you say that the Church looks to other scripture for direction. In addition, if Paul was self-appointed, then how could he be inspired? This appears to put you in a very unique situation. I mean, on the one hand, you are the one guy on the other side who will stand up and say "Yes, Paul said what he said, and meant what he meant". For that, all I can do is applaud and respect you in the fullest. Then on the other hand, when it comes to scripture actually being "wrong", I have ...... difficulty. :)
There are parts of +Paul's writings that seem objectionable and even discordant with the rest of the NT (as I see it). There are clearly some things the Protestants claim about +Paul that the Church rejects. There are some things +Paul says which the Church does not follow (i.e. "God raised Christ from the dead, etc. Christ rose from the dead, etc.). And there are sections of +Paul's works that are perfectly orthodox, or straight-forward (such as the issue of women being covered or not speaking in the church) that are summarily rejected by trendy Christians across the board.
So, before you notice the thorn in my eyes, examine your own for logs. Ignoring scripture is no different than saying "I think they are wrong" or "I don't think that's what it means, so I don't have to do this." The only differences is: I do confess before God and before the world my doubts and objections, and I do confess my deference to the Church as my sanctuary, trusting in her collective wisdom rather than believing my own arrogance and pride.
That being said, the Catholic and Orthodox Church teach +Paul differently from the Protestant innovation, and that includes the pre-existence of the souls, or the doctrine of redemption, etc.
You don't say the Church interprets Paul another way, you say that the Church looks to other scripture for direction
Yes, the Church looks at all Scripture. +Paul has been known to quote out of context to make a point. I don't think he did so maliciously, but it was out of context. His teachings on the soul is not exactly the same as that of the Gospels and deuterocanonicals.
Now, this may come as a surprise to you, but +Paul's Epistles do not rank the same as the Gospels, and the OT does not rank the same as the NT in the Orthodox Church. We do not treat all scripture the same. The OT is read at vespers (evening services); never in the Divine Liturgy except during Great Lent.
Of the OT, the Psalms are on top. The historical books are on the bottom. In the NT, the Orthodox Church never reads from the Book of Revelation.
So, I am not sure how "heretical" are my views and how much I am different than others who tacitly reject some parts of the Bible because it doesn't meet with their taste, but either can't see that they are doing it or can't bring themselves to admit it. I am also not alone in treating different parts of the Bible differently, as it is obvious that the Church does too.