You posted quite a bit and most of it was the standard fare of someone who knows Protestantism but not the Bible or orthodox Christianity. That’s fine. I expect as much on FR. You, for instance, wrote:
“And, Do this in remembrance of Me, Jesus said. He didnt say do this to be saved, to become a follower of Jesus.”
You seem to forget Christ’s own words in John 6:
53 Jesus said to them, Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. 54 Whoever eats[s] my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
Now, am I saying that the Eucharist is a necessary prerequisite for Heaven in every man’s case? No. But Jesus clearly believes it is connected with “eternal life”. The connection is grace.
Well, obviously this ongoing tug of war will one day be settled for one and all. I look forward to that day, though of course, not so our argument can be settled, but as our eternal presence with the Lord. As the song says, “What a day that will be, when my Jesus I shall see. When I look upon His face, the One who saved me by His grace. When He takes me by the hand and leads me to the promise land, what a day, glorious day, that will be”.
53 Jesus said to them, Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. 54 Whoever eats[s] my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
Now, am I saying that the Eucharist is a necessary prerequisite for Heaven in every mans case? No. But Jesus clearly believes it is connected with eternal life. The connection is grace.
So why is John 6:53 literally not an absolute requirement for one to obtain spiritual life as much as other "verily, verily" statements for accountable souls?
Allowing that believers may have spiritual and eternal life without receiving the Cath. Eucharist is contrary to the dire warning Caths typically invoke this as meaning, yet in order to even make this a normative requirement then you must substantiate that your understanding of John is what the NT church preached. Thus the question where in the preaching of the NT church (Acts onward, which reveals how the NT church believed the gospels) is taking part in the Lord's supper said to be the means of obtaining spiritual life in oneself, rather than believing the gospel as seen in Acts, resulting in regeneration, with God purifying their hearts by faith? (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-11)
While we are at it, where in the inspired record of the NT church do we see Catholic priests conducting the Lord's supper as their (or a) primary active function, and offering the elements as a sacrifice for sins and dispensing them to the people as spiritual food by which they obtain spiritual life (and being charged with doing so)?
Versus preaching the word being their primary active function, (2Tim. 4:2) and charged with feeding the flock thereby, (Acts 20:28) with the word being called "milk" and "meat," "milk" (1Pt. 1:22; Heb. 5:12,14) by which one is born again, (Ja. 1:8) and nourished (1Tim. 4:6) and built up (Acts 20:32)
For "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing [as food]: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. (John 6:63) Which is the only understanding that conflates with Scripture oversall. .