From Live Stream of Chat on a Video by Sungenis

Here is the video, it does not cover this question:

The Catholic view of Scripture | Robert Sungenis & Sam Shamoun
Robert Sungenis, 22 July 2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3hzPxKfWLs

Daivon

An interpretation I heard of 2 Thes. 2:14 (2 Thes. 2:15 in other translations) was that what they received that was spoken, was the preaching of the Epistle in defense of Sola Scriptura. Thoughts?

Daivon

In summary: 2 Thes. 2:14/15 is telling people to adhere to the oral teachings of the Epistle itself, not just oral teachings in general regarding the faith.

First, even if 2 Thess. 2, quoted verse, is referring to oral teaching contained in written form in the Epistle, this is just a material, but not a formal coincidence with Scripture alone. That's not sufficient.

Second, one cannot pretend that the whole epistle is in defense of Sola Scriptura. One would have to imagine something other than this epistle's content adding to it orally to say "sola scriptura" and that's not in scripture.

Third, the hypothesis is in fact just a hypothesis. If I hypothesised on 1 Cor 4:6 that "what is written" does not refer to Scripture books at all, but to a written list of clergy, saying that that one be not puffed up against the other for another, refers to the general rule, one should not accept leaders, especially into controversy, and then above that which is written refers to a written list of clergy in Corinth, as exception, yes, we should accept clergy as leaders, even in controversy, this would be a hypothesis.

I could still not claim that my hypothesis were Scripture.

Note, against this one could claim that Paul and Apollo both certainly were clergy, and this would invalidate the hypothesis - except that first part actually says

But these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollo, for your sakes; that in us you may learn,

meaning according to some that St. Paul was hiding the real names. This doesn't make previous verses, with Paul and Apollo as pseudonyms rather than real names, not inerrant, since the subject of inerrancy is not each verse in isolation, but the passage, where this deviation from literal truthfulness is explained, and the verses in context of the passage.

But these persons are not alone on the field. Calmet actually says the factions are referring to Paul and Apollo.

Now, the point is, this conjecture is conjecture. Like the other one. But the ones that defend "sola scriptura" against passages that aren't saying that or that are sometimes saying the opposite, like this verse ...

Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

... these ones are in fact incompatible with Scripture. Or with Scripture alone. Or both.

If incompatible with Scripture, they are ipso facto false. If with Scripture alone, they are self contradictory, and false because of that.

So, I was reading a hypothesis which is rather more common among Protestants, namely this one: yes, in St. Paul's day, there was a Church which had direct access to oral tradition from him. Then, one needed to attend to oral traditions as well. But this Church being lost, what we have left of oral tradition is just Scripture.

This is:

• first incompatible with Matthew 28:16-20, where the preservation of the Church is promised, as also in Matthew 16:18 - but in verses 16 to 20 more specifically the Church would be here all days, representing the apostles all days, and teaching all that Christ had taught them all days, with Him assisting Her all days;
• second, incompatible with Sola Scriptura, as it is an explanation added from outside of Scripture. Therefore itself destructive of what it is meant to defend.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Hubert of Tongres
3.XI.2022

Eodem die sancti Huberti, Tungrensis Episcopi.