The comment about Paul was a poke in the eye to Evangelicals. Roman Catholics know they can’t declare Paul a heretic because they “canonized” him as a saint centuries ago. But those epistles just seem to get in the way of their Roman tradtion of works based salvation.
So some have to use the “What did Jesus say?” statement to dismiss the remainder of the Gospels. It is great to note they never say “What did Jesus DO—Actions?” If we put together what Jesus Christ said and DID (crucified, died, buried, Risen from the dead now seated at the Right Hand of the Father), then Paul makes a lot more sense.
We are doomed to failure if we do not read the Gospels in the Light of the Cross and Empty Tomb. We take away those ACTIONS, then we are left with Sinai II the Law more perfectly spoken and lived by God Himself coming in the flesh. But Jesus Christ Truly God and Truly man DID shed His Blood for us and DID rise again from the dead three days later. And that is the “hermeneutic” Paul uses in his epistles.
Did it come from a Catholic, though? There are a number of persons I've read or read about that are very down on “Pauline” Christianity, preferring some kind of Gnostic, or sometimes “Petrine” version.
The poke never reached the eye...You can't poke unless you have something to poke with...They have nothing...