Interesting statement, given the preponderance of Pauline verse at daily and Sunday Mass (more than any other author), and, if you scroll through the proofs of the Catechism, you will see more Paul than any other author, as well. I contest this statement.
"Interpreting Paul in light of the Gospels" is code for ignoring Paul completely whenever he disagrees with Catholic theology (which is often).
Negative, it is never.
Recently you have said yourself that you do not believe Paul was Trinitarian.
I have said that Pauline verse does not contain Trinitarian proofs for such as the Athenasian Creed. And I am correct, which is why I am attacked personally for that statement, and not refuted by the Bible Believing (tm) folks on this forum. Since you have brought it up, how about taking that challenge yourself? I double dare you!!!
Therefore, you must ignore the many Pauline scriptures that have been given to you showing that he understood and believed in the Trinity.
Negative again. If you read Paul through our Nicean understanding of the Trinity, Paul simply teaches at worst subordinationalism. Paul's verses fit within our understanding of the Triune God; they do not teach it completely. This is yet another reason why those who teach that Paul is the theology, while the Gospels are the chronicles, are wrong.
I have found that the correct interpretation of Paul according to Catholicism leaves little left of Paul's actual words.
What are your actual findings?
I think that Judith Anne's testimony of her opinion of Paul's actual words is really closer to the true opinion of many Catholics about Paul (at least around here).
And you are welcome to your opinion; however Catholic theology and the Catechism are plain and available to all men to see.
The other approach is like yours, say that Paul was right when read through the prism of the Catholic view of the Gospels.
Paul is not God; God is not speaking through Paul; therefore Paul should be considered through the words of God, and not vice versa.
The problem with this, though, is that it obliterates what Paul actually said and changes it into something completely different. So, to me when a Catholic says that Paul was right he is really speaking of some other invented Paul, not the one portrayed in the Bible.
The early Church did not believe in double predestination, and neither did Paul according to his writings. Yet there are entire sects that base the foundations of their theology upon that misunderstanding.
Right on the money, Mark. You have to be aware that Protestant definition of the Holy Trinity does not necessarily correspond to the Nicean understanding of the universal Church. Theirs is, in fact, often subrdinaitonalist, especially when it comes to the Holy Spirit, whom Paul hardy even mentions. Paul's suboridnaitonalism is strictly of the Son. To him the HS is the third fiddle, and only the Father is called God.
This is yet another reason why those who teach that Paul is the theology, while the Gospels are the chronicles, are wrong
Those who teach that Paul is theology (Protestants) profess Paulianity and not Christianity.