In a lengthy passage of fewer than 40 words, Aquinas quotes Augustine to say the exact opposite of what you say. Receiving the Sacramental body and blood are not necessary to get the Life. He argues against the idea that the Sacrament is necessary to Salvation.
This makes some things clearer. No wonder there was so little response to my answer to the original post. That post LOOKED like an argument, but it was really not one. It was more like a politician's speech. It's not meant to be looked at carefully, it's just a kind of extended cheering or pep-rally. So the truth of any particular statement doesn't matter as long as the argument is anti-Catholic.
Anti-Catholicism is so fundamentally and, as it were, superabundantly true that it really doesn't matter what anybody says. If an article says things that aren't true, the truth of its being anti-Catholic washes away the other, lesser falsehoods.
Similarly, the greatest single authority on Catholic teaching about the Eucharist can write that the Sacrament is not necessary to salvation, but, He's Catholic, so he didn't mean it, but in fact meant the opposite.
AlllRIGHTY then.
Mumbo jumbo appeal to authority which is circular since the authority you seek to cite is the source of the blasphemies being passed on by the RCC ‘other religion’.
The catechism as written for catholics today instruct that it is essential. You can dance around the issues all night and still have not addressed the blasphemous claim that the priest of the RCC brings Christ down tot he catholic altar to sacrifice him in BODY, BLOOD, SOUL, AND DIVINITY continuously. That is blasphemy and to pretend that is not the issue is, well, diversion. I don’t dance with Augustine, Aquinas, or Luther. You haven’t impressed me with the crafty dodges of the essential issues, though I am sure there are catholic minds so enamoured by your obfuscations that they are saying prayers of thanksgiving for your work here. /sarcasm
Heck!
I've done that on this very thread!