Well, first of all, Paul wouldn't be attempting to correct these churches if he didn't think something that they were doing needed correcting, and if he didn't think that they would take his call for correction seriously. Why would they take his call for correction seriously if they belonged to a different church, with a different ecclesiastical hierarchy?
Paul was correcting an individual Church community that he judged to be in error. Sometimes Paul corrected those churches engaging in sinful activity, sometimes churches teaching false doctrines, and sometimes Paul was working through pastoral and doctrinal issues that had not yet been resolved. The most obvious example of the latter would be the disagreements regarding the applicability of the Jewish customs to the Gentiles.
History shows the teachings have changed in Rome through the years. I know the RC claims the truth "evolves" to cover for the mistakes they have made.
The necessity of circumcision for Gentiles is perhaps the earliest example of "the development of doctrine." Church doctrine, or Church teaching, simply develops over time.The Church draws conclusions based on revealed Scriptural and Traditional facts.
For example, 300 years of study and argument resulted in the promulgation of the doctrine of the Trinity. Once the Church invokes its authoritative teaching power Its teaching cannot be rescinded. Until such a time, however, it is permissible to speculate regarding open theological questions.
In other cases, bishops can simply teach erroneously. It happened in Scripture and it happens now. But the settled body of Church doctrine has never changed. It is only clarified and thus "added to."
Then there are other teachings of the Church that are pastoral and subject to change, such as "fish on Fridays."
An authoritative resource regarding Catholic dogma is Ludwig Ott's "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma."
************
Regarding Galileo. His teachings were condemned by a group of bishops, I believe. A finding by a group of bishops is not an infallible judgement.
***************
Do a search on "the seat of Moses" or "the chair of Moses" in the Bible. Then compare that to "the chair of Peter."
It is my contenting that it has added to scripture and is no longer in Gods will
I gave you scripture that shows Peter never had the authority you give him yet you bring up his chair
Again you are trying to make a point without proving your premise. You can't do this. If Peter was not the leader, which I showed you, the "Chair" that the RC bestowed on him is no value except to the RC who try to make this point.
Here again we have the RC claiming authority it gave itself.
That dog won't hunt.