Now that we've heard from the self-serving Unitarian parson on the conflict between Peter and Paul, let's have recourse to the Fathers and orthodox Catholics who wrote the classic biographies of St Paul.

The Christian view is that St Paul was in the right as regards Peter and not in the wrong as regards his "similar" situation.

Herr Ratzinger has a certain low cunning. But his mind is not good. He abides by bad philosophy: His punishment is to be unable to grasp important distinctions. His mind is a mass of steaming muck. Ratzinger is a cheap and vulgar little progressive mole. He is gross.

What was DIFFERENT in the "similar" situations faced by the offending Peter and the unoffending Paul is what a believer who cares about Truth notices. It is also what an unbeliever with at least average reading comprehension skills notices.

Herr Ratzinger is not a Christian believer. He cares only about his own apostatical agenda and his own vile ego. Obviously, he is trying to neutralize Traditionalists who cite the Antioch incident against HIM.

First he blasphemed against the holy martyrs by saying that they died for Religious Liberty. Now he dares to pervert the meaning of a Scriptural narrative to promote his false Gospel of Dialogue. And the creature isn't even sincere when he babbles about Dialogue. What this Bestial bully says to Christian believers is: "I speak and you think, 'It is not a progressive flunkey who has spoken, but the Holy Spirit!'

He doesn't "dialogue" with Russian Communists and Protestant Modernists and the Modern World generally. He is in basic agreement with all of them. It takes two sides to have a dialogue. When it comes to the Antichristian World and bad Catholics such as Ratzinger there is only one side.

He pretends to "dialogue" with real believers but it is only to find ways to attack them more effectively. Look how he stabbed the Traditionalists in the back, one minute pretending to respect their faith and devotion and the next speaking disdainfully of them to his Modernist minions as people who were just being "tolerated."

His reading of the Antioch incident is uncritical. In itself, it is idiotic. I find it odd that Ratzinger is getting this reckless in his Modernist deceit. Usually his lies and distortions are more subtle. Here his misrepresentation of the Scriptural passage is shockingly crude. A retarded seven year old could spot the disconnect between St Paul's account and Ratzinger's Modernist "reworking" of it and be disgusted.

There is no question of "dialogue" between Peter and Paul because the "logos" is one hundred per cent on the side of the hero, Paul.

The worst evil that can befall any human being is to submit his own mind for one second in any respect to the will of a creature whose mind is capable of conceiving of such ungodly trash.