Where did I do that? I pointed out that the revelation to St. Paul is not recorded in the same way as the teaching given the Apostles is recorded in the gospel.
I thought the distinction you were trying to make was that if it is not in the Gospels, then it is of lesser validity or lesser truth. Mark has made that argument in my opinion. He has said that everything must be seen through the "prism" of the Gospels (a means of reinterpretation of inconvenient scripture by Paul, imo). I have found that the effect of this is that if there is ever an apparent contradiction, whatever is in the Gospel is declared "right" and whatever the non-Gospel verse is, is declared "wrong", or is misshapen beyond all recognition. This approach does not seek harmony between the verses, it seeks supremacy of part of God's word over other parts of God's word. I disagree strongly with that view. All of God's word is equally true.
Now, I pose the question "do you call the unrecorded Word of God?" If you don't have the answer, just say that you don't rather than changing the topic.
I don't know what you mean by "unrecorded". Recorded to me means, for one thing, written down. The word of God through Paul and the other Apostles is all written down.
It has nothing to do with our discussion about the unrecorded deposit of faith and its superiority.
What is the authority for the existence of an unrecorded deposit of faith and its superiority (over God's own word?) ? I haven't commented on this part before.
However, in the Gal 2:11 episode St. Paul corrects St. Peter's behavior and not doctrine, -- the lifting of dietetic restrictions of the law of Moses had already occurred, under St. Peter's leadership. It is not a prooftext against Peter's primacy.
Does anyone correct the behavior of the Pope today, and be right? Paul never recognized the "primacy of Peter" in a SPIRITUAL sense. If he did, he would have to deny the revelation given to him by Christ Himself. I don't recall Paul doing that.
Such distinction can be made, when for instance direct words of Christ are compared with someone else's speech, but I was not making it.
The word of God through Paul and the other Apostles is all written down.
Some of it is written down. Certainly not all of it: Christ taught the Apostles for three years and one can read the four gospels in three hours, and the Epistles in another hour. Besides, the letters of Paul, especially, do not have the form of a recorded revelation: they address specific problems, refer to teaching done by him orally, make trivial references to his personal belongings, -- they are not written as a systematic re-telling of a revelation. And that is my point: that the Holy Scripture is but a part of the body of thought and fact that Christ communicated to the Apostles.
Does anyone correct the behavior of the Pope today, and be right?
Of course. For example, the previous pope was criticized for his not apologizing to the sex abuse victims, and I think, rightly so. Further, people criticize the Pope on dioctrinal grounds as well and that des not make them un-Catholic. For example, much of the criticism of the Vatican II is valid or at least permissible for a Catholic to make.