What manner is absurdity is that? "Inescapable meaning!?" Rather, i see that it is only inescapable according to the Romanized mind that this and other texts must say what you assert, including the Eucharist being the body and blood of Christ and necessary for salvation. And which effectively disallows most all Prots from being saved, as they who do not see Scripture teaching the Catholic Real Presence.
And thus the issue remains that of interpretative authority. We can argue Scripture till the cows come home on the meaning of Scripture texts, and we have , but as Scripture can only support Rome and never contradict her, and as it cannot be the RC basis for assurance (unless evangelicals are right and the infallible magisterium is not what provides that), and as RCs are bond to defend Rome, then the real issue is the logic that sees promises of Divine guidance and presence as meaning a perpetual infallible magisterium.
RCs see texts such as Mt. 16:18 and Jn. 14:16 as promising a perpetual infallible authoritative magisterium, under the premise that such is necessary for determination and preservation of Truth, and which you see being fulfilled in Rome being the historical instrument and steward of Scripture, thus she is that perpetual infallible authoritative magisterium, and infallibly definers herself as being so and worthy of implicit assent of faith. And by this RCs have assurance and all dissenters from Rome are cooked.
But such an ecclesiastical magisterium was not how writings and men of God were established as being so in Scripture, nor is what is promised, while Scripture is not even determinative for an RC.
However, despite the firewall that automatically must reject anything that contradicts Rome (though some RC defenders do so), i did briefly deal with your proffered proof texts, and focusing on the meaning of "the rock" was no sidetrack at all, but one that RCs major on for good reason. For the meaning of "rock," is the critical issue since otherwise you can simply have a promise that the church, as the body of Christ, will overcome the gates of Hell, versus only the Catholic church being the body of Christ, or the only valid visible manifestation of this.
Yet on the papacy, too, the scripture is with us: clearly by rejoicing over the confession of Peter, renaming him after Christ's own attribute, and promising the keys to heaven Christ meant to elevate Peter as a person, not some abstract faith.
The massive and manifest problem is that the extrapolative RC imagination on what this elevation meant simply does not correspond to what Scripture nor even what modern researchers find in early church history.
I can elaborate on this but when a intractable commitment to Rome that compels texts to inescapably defend her, then any and all evidence to contrary must be dismissed.
Luke 22:32 clearly gives Peter a role of safeguarding the faith of the other apostles.
That is just another example of the extrapolative RC imagination. Somehow the prayer that the faith of the street-level leader among brethren would persevere, and strengthen his brethren, means Peter was The exalted infallible head whom all the church looked to as the first of a line of infallible popes ruling from in Rome.
But which is contrary to what a more comprehensive examination of Scripture reveals, which is too much to post here.
Similarly your interpretation of John 14 verses does not match even formally what the scripture says, because in the scripture Christ promises the leadership of the Holy Spirit in the utterances of the Church "for ever", and not till such time as the New Testament is written and canonized.
This again is the RC imagination at work. What Jn. 14 promises, "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; (John 14:16) is promised and given to all believers, (Jn. 7:38; Eph. 1:13) and nowhere no way promises or requires a perpetual infallible magisterium. And by reliance upon such presumption error has resulted recalcitrant preservation of errors of tradition, exposed by the assured and established word of God, the Scriptures, in which see fulfillment of the promise of the Lord to lead into all Truth.
We don't know who is and is not saved, for we are saved by our works and the intention of imitating Christ that accompany them. But as a general rule, a direct denial of words of the Gospel destroys your souls, yes.
RCs see texts such as Mt. 16:18 and Jn. 14:16 as promising a perpetual infallible authoritative magisterium
Yes, except it is not "text" that promise but rather Christ has promised exactly that, and I, a Christian, believe Him.
But such an ecclesiastical magisterium was not how writings and men of God were established as being so in Scripture
You mean, Christ did not say what is written, or said it without meaning it, or what?
while Scripture is not even determinative for an RC.
The Holy Scripture records words spoken by Christ, in this case, or otherwise words spoken by the Church and her Builder through her prelates and saints. That is authoritative.
For the meaning of "rock," is the critical issue since otherwise you can simply have a promise that the church, as the body of Christ, will overcome the gates of Hell, versus only the Catholic church being the body of Christ, or the only valid visible manifestation of this.
If the words "Gates of Hell shall not prevail over the Church I shall build" (paraphrasing) were said in some different context you could argue whatever that context would allow. You still would have to explain how anything or anybody could prevail or not prevail over a community of all Christians, or else you are back to "Church" meaning not a collective of people but an institution that survives or doesn't as an institution. Further, you would still have to note that that institution is thought of by Jesus as a single one, not several or many -- because in the latter case He would have to somehow define how His promise would apply to each of them singly.
But we don't have to imagine the scripture that was not written since we have Matthew 16 where the promise comes in a context. The context is not just the naming of Simon Bar Jona "Rock" but also the promise of "keys to heaven", the attestation that God revealed to Peter his confession, and the promise that the infallible, invincible Church will be built on the very "rock" that Peter is being named after; that, lastly, Peter can legislate on earth and his legislation will be binding in heaven.
Now, "rock" is indeed a metaphor for God everywhere in scripture. Your opinion seems to be that Jesus either did not know that, or did not mean that (that Protestant Jesus often has no clue what He is talking about, so that wouldn't be the first or the last incident). This is a good example of Protestant defects of faith. I prefer to think that Jesus knew what he was doing and meant to give Bar-Jona this divinizing name, because the renaming was in the context of other kind of promises, authorizations and praises given Peter. It is a single package and the package describes pretty much an invincible Church with an infallible Pope in it. Nor is it a single episode: in Luke 22:31 Christ predicts that it is Peter whose faith will infallibly convert others during difficult times.
Another way of twisting and ultimately denying scripture is to pretend that somehow the person of Bar-Jona is not really there: that the praise goes to abstract faith, that rock is only the fundament but never a person with that name, that the keys were promised but not delivered, that the legislative authority being also with the Church (in Matthew 18:18) cannot be with Peter (another case of a befuddled Protestant Christ), that none of that can possibly apply to anything or anyone today because the authority of Peter died with Peter. Spare the childishness. Read the Scripture every once in a while like God means what He says. You will feel better.