No...that's not correct.
Because if it were the thief on the cross wouldn't get into Heaven as he had no chance to participate in the Lord's Supper.
That would also rule out deathbed conversions, people mortally wounded professing faith in Christ, etc as they have no chance to participate in the Lord's Supper.
IF one reads the accounts of the Lord's Supper in the Gospel and 1 Corinthians, one quickly sees this is to "do this in remembrance of Me."....not to be saved.
Besides, if eating Jesus were the way to get saved, then once should be enough.
Instead, it’s on again, off again salvation where it needs to be replenished weekly.
Besides, we were just told on this thread that baptism is required for salvation. Now we’re told communion is necessary. Looks like baptism isn’t good enough either.
It looks like more hoops (works) need to be added to get saved.
Anything you are trusting besides Jesus for salvation is the thing you believe saves you. Clearly Catholicism teaches that faith in Jesus Christ is not enough. His atonement in and of itself is not sufficient to save a person.
The thief on the cross is the exception. Exceptions don’t make the rule.
Firstly, of course we don’t know IF the thief was a fallen disciple who could have been baptized. The Bible is completely silent on this, so we can’t assume either way.
NOTE that the good thief does know Jesus - he knew Jesus had done nothing wrong, that Jesus was Lord, and that Jesus was going to his kingdom after he died (something Jesus made clear only to his disciples—see Matthew 13:10-11). It is possible, then, that the thief on the cross was a fallen-away disciple (cf. Matt. 27:44) who repented on the cross. If so, it’s likely that he would have been baptized.
Furthermore, Jesus teaches us that Baptism incorporates the individual into the Body of Christ, and within the whole life of the Church an individual’s baptism must be accompanied by faith. The developing faith of the individual is empowered by the grace of baptism, and nurtured by the whole Church, but if the Christian faith is rejected or never positively affirmed, the baptism is not magically effective.
There is the baptism of blood and baptism of desire - the baptism of blood refers to those who were not baptised but martyred for Christ. The baptism of desire refers to those individuals with faith in Christ who would be baptized if they had the opportunity and if they truly understood what baptism means. It applies to those who, due to extraordinary circumstances, do not have access to water for baptism. But the New Testament indicates that what we call “baptism of desire” is the case for the Old Testament saints. Noah and his family were “saved through water” in the flood, (2 Pet. 2:5) and the Hebrew children were baptized “into Moses in the cloud and the Red Sea” (1 Cor. 10:2). This suggests that baptism of desire may also extend to those who have pre-Christian faith or to non-Christians who have faith according to the level of their knowledge, but have never heard the Christian gospel.
It may also apply to those who have faith in Christ, but have not been baptized because they truly and sincerely (because of false teaching received in goodwill) do not believe that baptism is necessary. Even in these cases, however, it should be understood that the Church teaches that such individuals “may” be saved, not that they are saved.