Rad trads, calendar worshipers, and fundamentalists are the Pharisees of Christianity?????

You are committing the exact same error as those who grumbled and abandoned him by looking for a literal meal. We're looking at John 6. I'm presuming that you see this as a forerunner to your eucharist, but the last supper hasn't happened yet.

In the passage, Jesus uses metaphorical language to teach that belief gives eternal life. This is a parallel of the "living water" episode in John 4, which I'm sure you also teach to be metaphorical.
The Jews are offended that he is claiming to be divine (John 6:41), then offended that they perceive him to be teaching cannibalism (6:60). In fact, he clarifies the metaphor in the first place ("Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. "I am the bread of life. Jn. 6:47-48 NAS), but even after he hears them grumbling he gives a clarification

Wait a sec, so are you saying that taking the Eucharist is unbliblical? "Do this in remembrance of Me"?

If only the apostles and disciples who brought the Holy Mass to the nations, teaching the same exact beliefs on real presence all over the mediterranean world that Christ taught them, had received the light of Protestant reformers 15 centuries later. They would know better.

The catholic articulation of the doctrine of the eucharist is unbiblical because it claims to be a sacrament, a ritual you must follow in order to receive grace.
The ordinance of observing the Lord's Supper is biblical.

Simply untrue. You only need to observe that it wasn't codified until 1215 at the fourth lateran council to disprove your faulty assertion.
Even if it were, that's not a hermeneutical argument.

He's saying that the eucharist isn't necessary for salvation, not that it shouldn't be done at all. "Do this in remembrance of me" not "do this so you may be saved by me".

You know the Armenians, Ethiopians, Copts etc. were already separated from the Catholic church and already believed in the real presence, right? You also know this dogma was affirmed at this time specially to fight the Cathar heresy which denied the already accepted doctrine of real presence?
And it doesn't need to be, because interpretation of scripture alone, without the light of the tradition through which the scripture itself was compiled, is not sufficient.

Well, Christ should not have to tack "do this to be saved" onto the end of everything he said. He said to His followers "Do this in remembrance of Me" which pretty heavily implies that he wants them to continue doing it after he is no longer with them. If you are a follower of Christ, then I would think you would follow this command.

Scripture equips for every good work
2 Tim 3:17

Do you think your salvation is contingent on perfect obedience to every command in scripture?

"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Matt 5:48

Yes, that is an instruction. Is your salvation contingent on perfect obedience?

I sure as heck hope not because I'm about as imperfect as a human can get.

You're right. That's the point of grace. Even though we don't deserve it, it's freely offered.
As we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8.

This post demonstrates a faulty understanding that all instructions carry the weight of damnation if you fail.
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
9 not as a result of works, that no one should boast. (Eph. 2:8-9 NAS)

shoo shoo liberal

While I'm very much in favor of traditionalism, I do think there are some issues on which typical traditionalists have weird priorities.

For example, I don't understand why the extraordinary mass can't be held in vernacular. Especially when we let Eastern Catholics hold their traditional liturgy in vernacular. Things like that where they seem to let aesthetics and tradition get in the way of practicality and reasonability, effectively making things more difficult and exclusionary for seemingly no reason other than tradition for tradition's sake.

That's not even what the part you cited says. It says that scripture is useful, not that it sufficient in itself.
You should stop treating the bible as an encyclopedia with definitions everywhere that can be freely and fully examined apart frim the rest. It was not written this way.

...

So when Jesus uses the Greek words which describe animalistic eating - when Jesus says, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye MUNCH ON the flesh of the Son of man, and GUZZLE DOWN his blood, ye have no life in you." - you're saying He uses this explicit and unambiguous language to… make a metaphor?

Of course, when you take the Eucharist without faith in Christ, it profits you nothing. Nobody who believes in the Real Presence will ever tell you that you can be saved without faith in Christ just because you eat a little disk of His flesh. The belief that Christ is really present in the Eucharist absolutely does not contradict the belief that you cannot be saved without faith.

That is exactly how metaphors work.
"Jews are swine"
"Jews are dirty, disgusting hogs who wallow in the mud and eat slop"

These are both metaphors, despite one being more graphic than the other. A Jew is not really a pig.
Is this just some talking point you heard in a youtube video?

This is what papists actually believe the bible says

In your example both metaphors are very clear and unambiguous in their meaning. One can look at a Jew and see very clearly that he is not a literal hooved animal. It's obviously not very clear in the case of Christ saying you have to MUNCH ON His body in order to be saved as a metaphor for believing in Him, considering that the crowd took him to be literal and left, and considering that millions of Christians throughout the ages have also taken it to be literal. Why, of all things, would Christ use cannibalism as a metaphor for faith? Cannibalism is generally a pretty disgusting practice, and He surely knew that using such a metaphor would close hundreds of hearts against Him. Did He use this imagery for the express purpose of driving the crowd away? If so, why did He repeat it at the Last Supper?

yes

Which verbs in particular are you pointing to?

Then firstly, why? And secondly, why repeat the cannibalism metaphor at the Last Supper, in the company of His close friends? And again to the disciples He met on the road to Emmaus? Clearly it holds some value beyond its utility as normie-repellent.
"Trogo." It's usually translated roughly as "to gnaw, to chew." As opposed to "phago," which is more usual for things that should be translated as "to eat".

Yes, and works alone do not make us worthy of the Kingdom of God, as protestants like to recall.
That's why the Word became Flesh, so we could literally be nourished by consuming the Eucharist.
Your interpretation of Christ's word was born with unprecedented mass production of written work and I understand that protestants want to treat the Bible as an instruction manual, but that's simply not how we used to think before the Renaissance. The Eucharist is real AND a symbol. The dichotomy between symbolism (or what you call a metaphor) and reality is completely foreign to the times of the Old and New Testaments.

I gave my answer

biblehub.com/greek/5176.htm
trogo is used in John 13, but not the other 3 records of the last supper. I'm not sure what the issue is, you want an answer as to why use this word instead of a different one?

mere assertions
I'll have to presume you mean symbolism (typology) on just this topic is foreign, since typology is all over the whole Bible.

Trogo is used at the sermon where the crowd was driven away, not the Last Supper. Sorry, I didn't mean to mislead you there. But while the language isn't quite as explicit at the Last Supper, the imagery is still there, even when just talking to His friends. Why?

Why use the same metaphor?
What's the alternative?

It seems that you think you know better than the Apostles, their disciples and all the early churches that they have founded who believed in the Real Presence, so it follows that I stop playing on your grounds and take a wider perspective to show why your hyper-literalistic modern perspective might be wrong.

You think you're coming of as some sage drawing wisdom from the ages to dispense it, but really you're just being an obtuse ideologue.

My "ideology" is apostolic, yours was made up by taking a book entirely out of its context. I'm not some sage, neither were the apostles; but they received the Holy Spirit.

There, I can also drop segmented Bible verses:
2 Corinthians 3:6