There are parts of +Paul's writings that seem objectionable and even discordant with the rest of the NT (as I see it). There are clearly some things the Protestants claim about +Paul that the Church rejects. There are some things +Paul says which the Church does not follow (i.e. "God raised Christ from the dead, etc. Christ rose from the dead, etc.). And there are sections of +Paul's works that are perfectly orthodox, or straight-forward (such as the issue of women being covered or not speaking in the church) that are summarily rejected by trendy Christians across the board.
So, before you notice the thorn in my eyes, examine your own for logs. Ignoring scripture is no different than saying "I think they are wrong" or "I don't think that's what it means, so I don't have to do this." The only differences is: I do confess before God and before the world my doubts and objections, and I do confess my deference to the Church as my sanctuary, trusting in her collective wisdom rather than believing my own arrogance and pride.
That being said, the Catholic and Orthodox Church teach +Paul differently from the Protestant innovation, and that includes the pre-existence of the souls, or the doctrine of redemption, etc.
You don't say the Church interprets Paul another way, you say that the Church looks to other scripture for direction
Yes, the Church looks at all Scripture. +Paul has been known to quote out of context to make a point. I don't think he did so maliciously, but it was out of context. His teachings on the soul is not exactly the same as that of the Gospels and deuterocanonicals.
Now, this may come as a surprise to you, but +Paul's Epistles do not rank the same as the Gospels, and the OT does not rank the same as the NT in the Orthodox Church. We do not treat all scripture the same. The OT is read at vespers (evening services); never in the Divine Liturgy except during Great Lent.
Of the OT, the Psalms are on top. The historical books are on the bottom. In the NT, the Orthodox Church never reads from the Book of Revelation.
So, I am not sure how "heretical" are my views and how much I am different than others who tacitly reject some parts of the Bible because it doesn't meet with their taste, but either can't see that they are doing it or can't bring themselves to admit it. I am also not alone in treating different parts of the Bible differently, as it is obvious that the Church does too.
Jimmy Carter considers himself wiser and more holy and accurate than St Paul, too.
I don’t think such hair splittings will turn out, in eternity, to have meant near as much as the attitudes about them turned out to mean for those holding them.
Ignoring scripture is the same as believing it is wrong, only if your belief in the interpretation disagrees with your own belief about its correctness. On the issues you mention, like covering, there is more than one colorable interpretation. So, one would be contradictory for not covering only if the Holy Spirit revealed to that person that covering was intended for all (women) Christians of all time.
In addition, I DO give you full credit for being open and honest about your beliefs and disagreements. I hope you didn't think I was trying to be mocking. :)