No Evidence has been presented as of today

[Gottle_of_Geer]

gusano:

As I said, There are many posts listing their :disqualification of The RCC" as the Church which Christ is buildimg,
But no post thus far has provided evidence that the reformers were sent by God.

BTW, “Sent by God” is an Apostle .

The Holy Roman Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ and He sent his Apostles.Confirmed by signs and wonders,
The most recent was John Paul II.

Protestant religious system

This is debatable - there is a danger in using this phrase of ascribing to the Reformers the whole state of Protestantism in the centuries since them.​

Besides, the roots of the Reformers are the same as those of Catholics & Orthodox & and all other Christians: the Reformers are much Christians as any Pope. Not that sixteenth-century Christians were ready to admit this: but it remains a fact of history nonetheless. It is easier to deny from a doctrinal POV - the problem is that doctrine & history don’t always agree; unless one starts from the POV that no real disagreement between them is possible, and interprets history by that position.

If one doesn’t take account of the background of the Reformation, it will never be understood - the Reformers were reacting to real wrongs which did nothing for the credibility of the Church. If it behaves like a whore for a long time, it’s very hard to believe its claims of perfect fidelity to its Divine Spouse. That is why the evils in the CC needed mentioning. Amos would never have prophesied, had he been judged by the standards Catholics expect of reformers - he didn’t have the permision of the appropriate authorities.

Luther and the others played sufficiently different parts in the Reformation for sweeping descriptions of the work of all to be difficult to make - after all, Calvin, as a member of the second generation of the Reformation, was not doing quite the same as Luther did - Luther’s activity had more of a shock value; Calvin was in a position to be able to priofit from Luther’s “post-RC” ministry & writings; which Luther had not been able to do, for obvious reasons.

No pope is an Apostle - the Apostleship is not inheritable: it is confined to a few Christians, at the first beginnings of the Church; not passed down. This is fairly basic ecclesiology - though not the kind of thing that attracts much attention on Catholic boards, because it’s not peculiar to Catholicism: for Catholics to say that about it does not divide us from (say) Anglicans (and a good thing too).

[continue]

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

…continued & ended]

God is bigger than the Church, and sends whom He Wills: they don’t have to be Catholic in order to do His Will, any more than Sennacherib had to be a Jew in order to be the rod with which to chastise His people. A God Who is not free to raise up whom He Wills, to act upon or among His people for their blessing or their punishment, is not God, but a tribal idol - He is at the mercy of man. As the God of the NT is supremely a God of grace, He is supremely free to act as Saviour - even if this is not to His Church’s liking. God has to be greater than His Church, otherwise being a sinner in a Church full of sinners merely becomes a new form of slavery. But for that to happen, would mean that Christ had not been our Redeemer after all - it would empty His Cross of its power. ##

was founded by Luther, Zwengli, Huss, Calvin and others…many others.
Borrowing their bibles from the Catholic Church and re-writing them.

No. The CC is not the owner of the Bible - God is. Only God. For the CC to claim to be an owner of God’s gifts, when she is no more than a steward of them, is something she often does. Calvin, to his enormous credit, did a great deal to restore a healthier and truer outlook, in which man is God’s dependant & servant; not the outright owner of what is God’s. That way, God is glorified, and man gets absolutely no credit for anything whatever - except for his wickedness, which alone is of his making. There’s too much “Glory be to the Church” - the glory is God’s alone.​

It is untrue to say that the Reformers rewrote the Bible -and apart from anything else, although people mention the loss of six or seven books (depending on how one counts them) often, I don’t see floods of quotes from them; from Tobit, Judith, and the rest. The only one that seems to be quoted much is 1 Maccabees, because of chapter 12. But for practical purposes, we might almost have the same canon as our Protestant brethren. The importance of those books seems to be largely totemic - they show that we of the RC tribe are not like those Protestants over there, in their tribe. ##

and those sent by “the founders” can be found …
among countless denominations.
Where is the evidence ?

gusano

As to the “countless denominations”, Protestants don’t have the same conception of Church as Catholics. They can easily point out how the CC notion of a visible Church ruled from the top in which almost all power is exercised from the top, is far from Apostolic or Patristic. It is far from obvious that the CC’s organisation as it now exists is the best realisation possible of the NT data about the Church; & the CC has fallen into many evils even so. We are no position to boast of our wonderfulness, or to gloat over any problems they may have.​

Insisting that a Protestant Reformer must be able to be shown to be a Reformer in the Catholic sense by standards which implicitly exclude that possibility, makes it impossible for a Protestant Reformer to be anything but a non-Reformer - you’re asking a question to be answered on conditions which have been rigged in advance, to make only one answer possible.

It’s the equivalent of asking (as some do ) "Has your priest stopped sodomising choir-boys ? " - that is not only needlessly offensive: it is also grossly illogical, becase it presumes a state of affairs which might not be real. It’s an example of the fallacy of “poisoning the wells”.

The question in this thread is not as obviously offensive, but it is equally illogical. ##

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

SolaChristo:

There is not 14 approved tarnslations of the english bible today in 2005. If you believe that there were 14 German translations approved in Luthers day I have a bridge to sell.
KJV was not the first english version.D-R is greatly flawed surely you dont uphold it.
Its hard for the peasants to learn the bible when the only scripture they would hear in church was latin.
Read the hardship of those who were persecuted for desiring to give the common folks a bible they could understand. Read of the burnings and the tortures and “feel” the pain of those who had a love for the word of God.

Scripture readings and homilies were ALWAYS in the vernacular languages during the Mass. And yes, there were 14+ approved German language translations at the time of the Reformation. The DR is greatly flawed? No, it was not. Let me ask you this, did you know that before the Gutenberg press the cost of a Bible was roughly three years wages and were translated/copied by monks? Also, almost everyone that could read during that time could read latin because it was the language of culture (sort of like how now almost everyone in europe and other parts of the world can read/speak at least some english)… Also, even in the vernacular language translations of the Bible there was artistic depictions of events for the peasants who could not read or write. Your description of the medieval Catholic Church comes from biased eyes… if you lift the bias you will learn quite a bit.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

gusano:

What I mean by;“Omit the most righteous deed that Faith makes possible.” is …
Eat and drink the body and blood of Christ for the forgiveness of sins.

As the reformers began their “Cleansing”…They may have begun with a pure Faith (…such as,Eph. 4: 25 —5: 21)
but it rapidly became a “feeding frenzy” and as they gained momentum in tossing out “corruption”,
they tossed Altars, and everything that serves the Altar, including Priests, vestments, Holy Rites…and in their frenzy
they tossed The New and Everlasting Covenant !

All one has to read is what God says about those who violate or do not keep his Covenant…
do the math.

and Jesus, the Mediator of The New Covenant said it himself;
Depart from me you workers of iniquity, I never knew you !"
Put (2)+(2) together

The Holiest of all deeds that Faith makes Possible is to
**Keep the New Covenant; … **
Eat His flesh and drink His blood for the forgiveness of sins.

Now tell me; How are you going to carry out His command if you don’t even have an Altar ?

see Rev. 11: 1

gusano

Except that they regarded the Mass as a perversion of the Lord’s Supper - it’s easy to become indignant but one has to try to understand all POVs - one’s own, that of the official CC at present, that of the CC then, and that of the Reformers. A POV that is purely dogmatic when looking at questions which relate to matters of history is no help to historical understanding.​

The violence could claim distinguished precedents: Josiah of Judah, who is definitely one of the “good” kings of Judah, was also a thrower-down of idolatrous worship; & a godly persecutor. He was something of a favourite among the reformed, it seems.

And there had been plenty of pious vandalism when the Roman Empire was being Christianised - the sacking of Antwerp Cathedral in 1566, and the feeding of consecrated Hosts to a parrot, might be regarded as delayed payment for the destruction of the Serapeum in 391. ##

 

[gusano]

SolaChristo:

Jer 31:31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah-- 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, F23 says the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

Heb 8:8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah-- 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds F34 I will remember no more.” F35

It certainly appears the reformers had this one right also.

 

[SolaChristo]

Semper Fi:

Scripture readings and homilies were ALWAYS in the vernacular languages during the Mass. And yes, there were 14+ approved German language translations at the time of the Reformation. The DR is greatly flawed? No, it was not. Let me ask you this, did you know that before the Gutenberg press the cost of a Bible was roughly three years wages and were translated/copied by monks? Also, almost everyone that could read during that time could read latin because it was the language of culture (sort of like how now almost everyone in europe and other parts of the world can read/speak at least some english)… Also, even in the vernacular language translations of the Bible there was artistic depictions of events for the peasants who could not read or write. Your description of the medieval Catholic Church comes from biased eyes… if you lift the bias you will learn quite a bit.

Have you read the first person accounts of the hardship of those who wanted the bible in the venacular and the obstacles that htey had to overcome?

 

[gusano]

SolaChristo:

Jer. 31:31"Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—"
It certainly appears the reformers had this one right also.

They at least had the Scriptures right,
After all, they got them from The Catholic Church…and kept them.
So today they still have the Scriptures, which tell us **about ** The New Covenant being Promised.
But they threw away the New Covenant when they threw away the “baby” with the polluted “bathwater”

Jesus said;
"All of you must drink from it (the cup), for this is my blood, the blood of the New Covenant, to be poured out in behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins."

Jeremiah 31: 31 is the promise
Matt. 26: 26-28 is the Delivery,
It came into Force in Christ’s death… Heb. 9: 17

which, sad to say, the reformers tossed.

Related Scriptures; Mark 14: 22-26, Luke 22: 14-20, John 6: 44-65,
1 Cor. 11: 23-29, 1 Cor. 10: 16,17, Acts 2: 42.

The Peace of Christ be to you,

gusano

 

[gusano]

Moderator;
Please remove this (#45) Post. (I typed; “Edit” instead of “Quote”. )
My intended post is #47.

thank you

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

SolaChristo:

Have you read the first person accounts of the hardship of those who wanted the bible in the venacular and the obstacles that htey had to overcome?

Yes, it would be very hard for a peasant to afford a bible that cost 3 years salary before the invention of the printing press. Had the Catholic Church had the printing press at her disposal, then it wouldn’t have been a problem.

 

[gusano]

## Except that** they regarded** the Mass as a perversion of the Lord’s Supper - it’s easy to become indignant but one has to try to understand all POVs - one’s own, that of the official CC at present, that of the CC then, and that of the Reformers. A POV that is purely dogmatic when looking at questions which relate to matters of history is no help to historical understanding.

I apologize that I may have caused you to feel indignant.

When you say “They regarded the Mass as a perversion of The Lord’s Supper.”… I take it you mean The Reformers.
and they in turn trained their “disciples” to forever regard Christ’s Paschal Sacrifice as a perversion, thereby
keeping them away from The New Covenant indefinitely.

The Mass is a RITE prescribed by Christ and one can not just walk in and “know all about it”
It requires for God to reveal it (as in Matt. 11:25-27)
But if one is impatient, I can see how they might think it was a “perversion” …rather than admit;
“I have no revelation or understanding.”

The violence could claim distinguished precedents: Josiah of Judah, who is definitely one of the “good” kings of Judah, was also a thrower-down of idolatrous worship; & a godly persecutor. He was something of a favourite among the reformed, it seems.

Josiah is a favorite of mine.
I think it would be Heroic for a Protestant Pastor to Command all the people… as in 2 Kings 23: 21-…of course He would need an Altar.
I met a pastor who was Led by God to bring most of his flock into The Catholic Church …
rather than attempt to establish THE EUCHARISTIC LITURGY in his church.

And there had been plenty of pious vandalism when the Roman Empire was being Christianised - the sacking of Antwerp Cathedral in 1566, and the feeding of consecrated Hosts to a parrot, might be regarded as delayed payment for the destruction of the Serapeum in 391. ##

Here I am totally ignorant of what you are referring to.
sorry !

Jesus asks none of us to contribute vandalism…He begs us to “Offer our bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God our Spiritual worship.” (Rom. 12: 1)
for that we need an Altar.

Jesus, with all His heart, wants us to ENTER INTO AND KEEP THE NEW COVENANT
when we are in The New Covenant, we feed from
(1)…The Message … Kerygma
(2)…The Fellowship … Koinonia
(3)…The Body & Blood of Christ …Eucharistia
(4)…The Witness …Marturia

gusano

 

[SolaChristo]

gusano:

They at least had the Scriptures right,
After all, they got them from The Catholic Church…and kept them.
So today they still have the Scriptures, which tell us **about ** The New Covenant being Promised.
But they threw away the New Covenant when they threw away the “baby” with the polluted “bathwater”

Jesus said;
"All of you must drink from it (the cup), for this is my blood, the blood of the New Covenant, to be poured out in behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins."

Jeremiah 31: 31 is the promise
Matt. 26: 26-28 is the Delivery,
It came into Force in Christ’s death… Heb. 9: 17

which, sad to say, the reformers tossed.

Related Scriptures; Mark 14: 22-26, Luke 22: 14-20, John 6: 44-65,
1 Cor. 11: 23-29, 1 Cor. 10: 16,17, Acts 2: 42.

The Peace of Christ be to you,

gusano

Gus, Gus , Gus

The New Covenant is clearly outlined in Jer 31 and reiterrated in Heb 8. The New Covenant that God will put His laws in our minds and place them in our hearts.
No more shall we need teachers saying know the Lord for the least to the greatest will have the Almighty Eternal God living in their hearts and will know God for themselves.

 

[SolaChristo]

Semper Fi:

Yes, it would be very hard for a peasant to afford a bible that cost 3 years salary before the invention of the printing press. Had the Catholic Church had the printing press at her disposal, then it wouldn’t have been a problem.

COLLEGEVILLE, Minn. — A Benedictine monastery on the Minnesota prairie was the scene for the latest encounter between Anabaptists and Catholics seeking to reconcile a history written in the blood of persecution.

A group of about 25 Mennonites and Roman Catholics examined the legacy of Anabaptist martyrdom during a gathering July 26-28 at St. John’s Abbey.

The conference, on “Sixteenth Century Martyrdom in Ecumenical Perspective,” complemented a larger Anabaptist-Catholic dialogue that recently led to a conciliatory statement from the Vatican and Mennonite World Conference. It was the second gathering to examine the history of Catholic persecution of Mennonites and other early Anabaptists during the Reformation.
An institute, Kauffman said, also would promote accurate accounting of the history Anabaptists and Catholics share. Establishing a database with information about all Christian martyrs would be a possible objective, he said.

“There is an absolutely desperate need for a single narrative about what happened in the 16th century” that would be accessible to all Christians, Kauffman said. “It’s not only the best way but the only way of taking this skeleton out of the [Catholic] church’s closet . . . and giving it a decent burial.”

mennoweekly.org/AUGUST/08-16-04/MARTYRS08-16.html

 

[SolaChristo]

Semper Fi:

Yes, it would be very hard for a peasant to afford a bible that cost 3 years salary before the invention of the printing press. Had the Catholic Church had the printing press at her disposal, then it wouldn’t have been a problem.

Semper
You do a discredit to God, His word and history when you fail to acknowledge the abuse of those in power to limit and contain the pread of Gods word to all people.
You claim that the church of Rome only wanted to maintain a good transcript, free of errors. Yet the continous burning at the stakes, the imprisionments and persecution of scholars such as Tyndale shows a different agenda.
None of this would have been necessary had the the church at Rome translated bibles in the venacular, and not departed so far from the 1st century church(read selling of indulgences).

 

[gusano]

SolaChristo:

Gus, Gus , Gus

The New Covenant is clearly outlined in Jer 31 and reiterrated in Heb 8. The New Covenant that God will put His laws in our minds and place them in our hearts.
No more shall we need teachers saying know the Lord for the least to the greatest will have the Almighty Eternal God living in their hearts and will know God for themselves.

Well…Yes, that information has already been established;
That God has PROMISED a New Covenant.

Are you of the opinion that “…if you read it, …you got it ?”

My question to you is;
What evidence do you have in your possession NOW, that God has delivered The New Covenant to you,
That you have received it, as he delivered it, and
that you are a keeper of The New Covenant,

Is reading about it enough ?

gusano

 

[SolaChristo]

gusano:

Well…Yes, that information has already been established;
That God has PROMISED a New Covenant.

Are you of the opinion that “…if you read it, …you got it ?”

My question to you is;
What evidence do you have in your possession NOW, that God has delivered The New Covenant to you,
That you have received it, as he delivered it, and
that you are a keeper of The New Covenant,

Is reading about it enough ?

gusano

John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” 9 Nicodemus answered and said to Him, “How can these things be?” 10 Jesus answered and said to him, "Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things? 11 Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven. F14 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but F15 have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. 18 He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God

Peter says what it is to be part of the new Covenant

1. Repent
2. Believe in Christ
3. Be baptised.

Have you been baptized since you first came to believe?
Acts 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” 38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” 40 And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation.” 41 Then those who gladly F12 received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.

 

[gusano]

SolaChristo:

John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, ** unless** one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” 9 Nicodemus answered and said to Him, “How can these things be?” 10 Jesus answered and said to him, "Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things? 11 Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven. F14 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but F15 have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. 18 He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God

Peter says what it is to be part of the new Covenant

1. Repent
2. Believe in Christ
3. Be baptised.

Have you been baptized since you first came to believe?

The fact that you can quote all those verses is not evidence that you are born from above, nor that you are in The New Covenant.

Every time Jesus says ** “UNLESS” **,
It is a good idea to pay very close attention to what he requires
after that highly important word !
and
YES ! I have been born again.
and according to St. Peter …I did it (3), (2), (1). and then went on to Ratify The New Covenant.
By the way…
If you have been born again, you owe it to yourself to find out why Jesus says;
"UNLESS … you eat the the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have NO life in you."
This “UNLESS” is just as necessary as John 3: 5

Acts 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” 38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” 40 And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation.” 41 Then those who gladly F12 received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.

Baptism incorporates one into The Kingdom of God, into the Church.
“To Him who has, more will be given to him…”
He draws us further into His Kingdom by confirming (with our willful agreement) The New Covenant, Pact, …contract…
Are you "under contract with God ?
if so,
What is it ?

 

[SolaChristo]

Gus?
If you believe that the bread and wine are truely the body and blood of Jesus.
If you truely believe that a believer has no life in them unless they eat the body and drink the blood and that only a Catholic priest can consecrate the bread and wine.
If you truely believe all these things. Why do you then deny other believers from partaking in the body and the blood of Jesus, you are denying them eternal life. Seems awfully mean sprirted to me.

 

[SolaChristo]

Gus,
The New Testament model is to be baptised after you come to believe.
Did you follow the New Testament model?

 

[DeniseR]

SolaChristo:

Gus?
If you believe that the bread and wine are truely the body and blood of Jesus.
If you truely believe that a believer has no life in them unless they eat the body and drink the blood and that only a Catholic priest can consecrate the bread and wine.
If you truely believe all these things. Why do you then deny other believers from partaking in the body and the blood of Jesus, you are denying them eternal life. Seems awfully mean sprirted to me.

I’ve just been reading this thread and would like to jump in here if you don’t mind.

The Church attempts to protect people (Protestants and Catholics alike) from unworthily receiving the Body and Blood of Christ. One must be in the state of grace and believe that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. That means that Catholics must be in the state of grace (confessed mortal sins and received absolution through the sacrament of Reconcilliation). Non-Catholics (and, true, some Catholics) don’t follow the teachings of the Church and believe all the Church teaches on the Eucharist and would be receiving unworthily.

Read what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 11:27-32.

If non-Catholics did understand and believe what the Church teaches that the bread and wine becomes the Body and Blood of our Lord I would think they would become Catholic.

 

[SolaChristo]

DeniseR:

I’ve just been reading this thread and would like to jump in here if you don’t mind.

The Church attempts to protect people (Protestants and Catholics alike) from unworthily receiving the Body and Blood of Christ. One must be in the state of grace and believe that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. That means that Catholics must be in the state of grace (confessed mortal sins and received absolution through the sacrament of Reconcilliation). Non-Catholics (and, true, some Catholics) don’t follow the teachings of the Church and believe all the Church teaches on the Eucharist and would be receiving unworthily.

Read what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 11:27-32.

If non-Catholics did understand and believe what the Church teaches that the bread and wine becomes the Body and Blood of our Lord I would think they would become Catholic.

But if you believe that a person cannot have eternal life unless they eat and drink. You deny a person to eat and drink are you not denying the person eternal life?
Also please read 1 Cor 11 in context.
The Corinthian Church was not sharing what they had to brethern who did not have, thus Pauls condemnation.