Metmon states: “There’s not a single place in Scripture where faith in th4e Catholic church, or participation in the Catholic church is ever made a requirement for salvation.”
Are you sure? I think you are in denial. Here is one reference. There are others. Can you obtain the Eucharist - the Real Presence of Jesus anywhere but the Catholic Church?
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him” (John 6:53–56).
That doesn’t say belonging to the Catholic church is required for salvation.
So Jesus’ death on the cross is not enough.
You have to eat Him, too?
Do you know the origin of the phrase 'hocus pocus'?
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him” (John 6:53–56).
Think how ridiculous that is...NOT what Jesus said but how it is interpreted by the Catholic religion...
Your popes even claim a person doesn't have to believe in Jesus to go to heaven...That in itself is a horrendous teaching...
Suppose a drunk walks into a Catholic Mass thinking he walked into a Salvation Army soup line and and partakes in the Eucharist...He stumbles out of your Church into the path of a car and dies on the spot...
According to your interpretation of your proof text, he ends up in heaven...
Twice before I was a Christian I was in a Catholic church and partook of your Eucharist...Thank God I didn't die before I became a born again Christian...
“He says, it is true, that ‘the flesh profiteth nothing;’ but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, ‘It is the spirit that quickeneth;’ and then added, ‘The flesh profiteth nothing,’—meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: ‘The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.’ In a like sense He had previously said: ‘He that heareth my words, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life.’ Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appelation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. Now, just before the passage in hand, He had declared His flesh to be ‘the bread which cometh down from heaven,’ impressing on His hearers constantly under the figure of necessary food the memory of their forefathers, who had preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt to their divine calling.”—(Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, 37)