No, he's correct when he refers to this as a tenant of the Christian faith. As noted earlier, the Bible itself teaches that Scripture is sufficient.
It's not a tenant of Roman Catholicism.
There is a difference.
How brainwashed do you have to be to claim the Bible says something it clearly does not say?
There is not one clear, comprehensive, unambiguous, direct, declarative statement in the entire Bible that teaches what you claim. You don't have to like it, but to claim otherwise is to take the name of the Lord in vain.
It's not a tenant of Roman Catholicism.
There is a difference
So, it is your opinion that Catholics are not Christians, because they disagree with certain Protestant precepts. That's always struck me as a ridiculous position, historically illiterate.
Following your logic: the first 1500 years of Christianity were in error. The saints and martyrs of the early Church, all of whom were Catholics, that is adhered to the rulings of the Bishops and the authority of the Bishop of Rome, were not Christians.
Whereas the great Martin Luther, and his followers, discovered actual Christianity, presumably beginning with his nailing of the 95 Theses and continuing on through the resulting Reformation (but not counting the Counter Reformation, for some reason).
And of course the Scripture which is "Sola" to Protestants was itself curated and assembled by the Catholic Church, with the formation of the Bible at the Synod of Hippo in 393 AD.
Of course according to Protestant theory the non-Christian" Catholics got that wrong too, or so said Martin Luther who went about editing the Bible to remove the portions he didn't like. Here is Wikipedia's description of "Luther's Cannon"
Luther's canon is the biblical canon attributed to Martin Luther, which has influenced Protestants since the 16th-century Protestant Reformation. While the Lutheran Confessions specifically did not define a canon, it is widely regarded as the canon of the Lutheran Church. It differs from the 1546 Roman Catholic canon of the Council of Trent in that it rejects the Deuterocanonical books and questions the seven New Testament books, called "Luther's Antilegomena",four of which are still ordered last in German-language Luther Bibles to this day.So, different Protestant Churches have different Bibles with different parts left out, based on the views of different Protestant reformers - but Sola Scriptura still holds (it's just who defines the Scriptura that counts).
And what were Luther's reasons for wanting to chop out parts of the Bible?
Luther made an attempt to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon (notably, he perceived them to go against certain Protestant doctrines such as sola gratia and sola fide), but this was not generally accepted among his followers. However, these books are ordered last in the German-language Luther Bible to this day.[5]You know if one mad monk can edit the Bible to fit his beliefs, surely others can too. The unity of the church is obviously harmed by this practice, not to mention fidelity to history."If Luther's negative view of these books were based only upon the fact that their canonicity was disputed in early times, 2 Peter might have been included among them, because this epistle was doubted more than any other in ancient times."[1] However, the prefaces that Luther affixed to these four books makes it evident "that his low view of them was more due to his theological reservations than with any historical investigation of the canon."[1]
The first English Bible was authorized and printed by order of King Henry VIII
King Henry the Eighth funded the printing of the Bible in the English language, the Great Bible, the first Bible ever authorized for public use. Great Bbile Leaf Another Sample Leaf Of course, King Henry the Eighth did not do this because he had a change of heart, or because he was such a devoted Christian. He did it mostly out of personal pride, and to spite the Roman Catholic Church. King Henry wanted to divorce his wife and marry his lover, and the Pope refused to allow even the King of England to do this. So, King Henry just married his lover anyway, (later killing two of his many wives), and renounced the Roman Catholic Church, and proclaimed himself the head of both the State AND the Church (both King and “Pope” so to speak), and founded the Church of England, a.k.a. the Anglican Church.
Still, "Sola Scriptura". As long as it's an "Authorized Version", Catholics are not Christians, but Anglican's are?
If you don't see the absurdity of of this I think you are not really engaging in the topic.
Most people who I have heard make the fantastic claim that Catholics are not Christians were raised in very Evangelical churches. Were you? Religious views like yours are rarely arrived at in middle age, or held by people who have made a fair-minded study of the History of Church.
Sadly, it's also quite common belief among our friends who adhere to the teaching of the Protestant sects.