Not at all. If St. Paul wanted to say that it is sufficient -- including the scripture not yet written -- he would have said so, and he didn't. Don't spin, read.
To write that the Church is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth” is NOT to write that it is the truth itself, replacing the God-breathed words that Jesus says ARE the truth.
What does that have to do with anything? Indeed, Jesus is the truth, but who, according to St. Matthew and St. Paul is the foundation on which we resolve disputes about the meaning of what He said?
[the Scripture] does NOT mean that Paul had a separate teaching he taught orally
Of course not. No one alleged that, either.
it DOES mean that we should reject the “unfolding” done by the Magisterium for the last 2000 years
How?
drove away the Orthodox and latter drove away the Reformers.
The "reformers" should go. They should convert or stop pretending they obey the Scripture. The Orthodox are with us on Sola Scriptura, and on all matters of doctrine important to us. Our disagreements are marginal.
is it not true that even today the Catholic Church says that individuals need the Catholic Church to give the interpretation?
Yes. Ther scripture says so, and it is the point made in the article.
You write, “If St. Paul wanted to say that it is sufficient — including the scripture not yet written — he would have said so, and he didn’t. Don’t spin, read.”
I did read, Tornado. He wrote that it teaches and rebukes “so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work”. That defines sufficient. I use the word because it is easier than writing out all the full quote of Paul. If a manual teaches you well enough that you could be thoroughly equipped to perform a deed, is it sufficient to teach you the deed? That isn’t spin or interpretation, just basic English.
“but who, according to St. Matthew and St. Paul is the foundation on which we resolve disputes about the meaning of what He said?”
According to Paul, we should take our doctrinal disputes to the overseer. “He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.”
Notice, they had already taught the trustworthy word needed for sound doctrine. They didn’t need to wait for 500-2000 years for the Magisterium to unfold new meaning. Paul had already passed it on. As he told the overseers in Acts, “I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God. 28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. 29I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them.”
Jesus doesn’t address correcting church doctrine, but since you mention Matthew, I assume you are reading Matthew 18 out of context. Also, realize the word translated ‘church’ means ‘assembly’. It had started to take on religious tones, so ‘congregation’ would be a better translation than ‘church’. We’ve been stuck with church since the KJV, where King James, for political reasons, order the translators to use church instead.
I wrote, “it DOES mean that we should reject the “unfolding” done by the Magisterium for the last 2000 years”. When you reply “How?”, I assume you mean how does it mean that, not how does one do it. And it means that because if Paul taught the full counsel of God, then it would either be found in what was written, or in an oral tradition passed on from bishop to bishop - NOT discovered or ‘unfolded’ by men hundreds of years later. If it was the FULL counsel of God in 60 AD, it didn’t need men to find more in 1200 AD.