Which is simply an assertion of denial tha ignores or fails to see the evidence supplied against your unScriptural cannibalistic literalism, as well as the contradiction with your own church as a result.
You will do fine converting to Catholicism and holding Vatican II fallible.
And join the likes of your sect it seems.
However, there is no inconsistency: while a valid baptism does save anyone who committed no further sin and dies; and while Protestants may be saved by their works in imitation of and love for Christ; that is while on the road to the saving Eucharist,
This remains inconsistent. If one has the Holy Spirit then he has life within him, and which souls in Scripture obtained by believing the gospel, not when they first partook of the Lord's table. To be consistent with the literalism insisted upon in Jn. 6:53,54, one must be baptized and then believe and partake of the RP. But V2 affirms properly baptized Prots have.
In addition, you are not only reading into Scripture (again) but reading into Lumen Gentium and post V2 teaching, as they do not teach Prots being saved only if they committed no further sin after baptism and died, nor of having to partake of the Eucharist. Instead it teaches men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in ecclesial communities are in communion with the Catholic Church, even though this communion is imperfect, and have a right to be called Christian, and so she correctly embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. ( Unitatis Redintegratio)
And that that Christ's Spirit uses their Churches and ecclesial communities with their many elements of sanctification and of truth as means of salvation, (CCC 819) not as damned souls unless they believe in the Eucharist. It cannot call Prots as being a Christians and brothers if they need the Eucharist to obtain spiritual and eternal life, and thus be Christians and brothers.
Of course, RCs have much liberty to interpret both Scripture and their infallible interpreter.
when an intelligent and educated man spends day after day writing anti-Catholic essays that deny Christ's words, -- no there is no salvation in that case, not till such time these positions are turned away from in horror.
Considering how you wrest Scripture and resort to other tactics in order to defend Rome as one bound to, and how often i have exposed Rome's errors, your opinion here is actually an argument against conversion to Rome, which breeds both liberalism and cultic devotion.
Further, the argument is not whether the connection between the eating of the Eucharist and salvation is allowing exceptions,
Oh yes it does, as Jn. 6:53, 54 was and is always presented as an absolute, and if fact you are the first one who has actually responded to my response pointing out, and which requires an interpretive spin on V2, and now that of basically saying, "Well, we really did not mean John 6:53 they way it sounds, as if it literally means every lost soul," which you would say is like saying the Lord really did not know what He was saying, if we said it.
But the fact is that this "Verily verily" saying is an absolute statement, as are the other 25 Verily verily statements such as "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3:3) "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life." (Jn. 6:47)
RCs when pressed, simply do not think "Except" literally means every lost soul must.
other places where elements are called the blood of men
That is no problem; certainly people have employed all kinds of metaphors,
But which is blithely rejected in order to justify consuming human flesh to gain spiritual life.
In the Last Supper blessing, however, taken together with 1 Cor. 11 and John 6, there is no metaphorical speech observable.
Which is like the case of the thief not seeing the police station. As has been showed in the context of Scripture. John uses metaphors abundantly, and faith in Christ words of His Messiahship as giving "living water and presently "passing from death unto life," while nowhere is spiritual life obtained by physical eating anything physical, and eating human flesh and any blood is forbidden, and the apostles remained kosher. Meanwhile,water is refereed to as human blood, humans are figuratively referred to as food, as is the word of God, Jesus lived by the Father by obeying His word, and which was His "meat." But RCs have eyes but they see not.
Likewise, the fact that there is plenty of allegorical speech in the Bible does not mean that everything you don't like in it is allegorical.
Likewise, the fact that there is plenty of literal speech in the Bible does not mean that everything you like in it is literal.
Endocannibalism is most often an expression of veneration of the dead, or the pursuit of consuming some esoteric aspect of the person, like the deceased’s wisdom.
Neither bizarre and dangerous for health practices among some people tell us anything about the content of the Bible.
What it shows is that what is not seen in Scripture but forbidden, that of physically consuming human flesh and blood, and gaining spiritual life thereby, is what is seen in paganism. As is praying to departed souls, and the Queen of Heaven, etc.
All of which is justified under the premise of the assured veracity of Rome, thus arguing Scripture with RC defenders reveals how much they are programed against objective examination and repentance unto acknowledging of the Truth.
I'll stick with the inerrant Bible and not your dirty fantasies about it, thank you.
To be consistent with the literalism insisted upon in Jn. 6:53,54, one must be baptized and then believe and partake of the RP. But V2 affirms properly baptized Prots have.
But you must be. The point is that Christ explains that He is in the Eucharist and we must eat of Him as "food indeed" to have life eternal. What stages one goes through before he gets to eat Him are another matter; yes, there are people who never get to go the whole way, invincibly. Because of the damage to Christianity wrought by Luther, great many are in that intermediate stage, and may yet be saved.
this "Verily verily" saying is an absolute statement
Right. So take it as such; it is written for you to read.
John uses metaphors abundantly
But not in this passage. Verily.
That is all I see of substance in your post, even though it is much longer than the response. I repeat: read the Holy Scripture honestly, especially now that you had left the Holy Church still intending to somehow get saved.