All the saints, both men and women, whom we have from the beginning of the Church until our own day, have lived within the Roman Catholic Church.
Among the bishops: Saint Martin, Saint Nicholas, Saint Athanasius, and many others. Among the religious: Saint Dominic, Saint Francis, etc.
Among the widows: Saint Monica, Saint Bridget, Saint Elizabeth, etc.
Among the virgins: Saint Agatha, Saint Lucy, Saint Agnes, Saint Catherine, etc.
These saints, by following the Roman law, acquired heavenly glory. This law must undoubtedly be the surest path to heaven. Therefore, one must not seek another. To defend the truths of which this Church is the depository, thousands of martyrs gave their lives and triumphed over death, despite the most cruel torments.
From this, I drew this conclusion: it cannot be that the faith for which so many witnesses shed their blood is not the true faith. How then could I have doubted any longer the truth of the Roman Catholic faith?
All those who have attacked this Church by separating from it, as did Arius, Pelagius, Marcion, Macedonius, Mohammed, etc., and their followers, burn forever in the flames of hell. Luther, Calvin, and similar innovators of recent times were likewise heresiarchs. The risk is eternal damnation.
The faith of the Roman Church was the faith of Saint Paul, as this apostle attests to the Romans, chapter 1, verse 2. Why then should I waste my time seeking a faith other than that of this great Apostle?
Our adversaries readily concede that the Roman faith was such in the beginning. But they claim, without however proving it, that subsequently it ceased to be the true and apostolic faith, which Roman Catholics absolutely deny. And indeed, if one asks the adversaries in which dogmas of the faith the Roman Church has erred, where, and when, they know not what to answer.
Yet it is for them to prove it. Indeed, suppose a certain family, by everyone's admission, was once of high nobility, and someone came to say that, while this family once had an illustrious rank, it has since fallen from it: would not this man be obliged to prove at what time and for what cause it lost the glory of its birth? And if he could not provide proof, would not every fair judge condemn him as a slanderer?
If, by the grace of God, I were not settled in the faith of the Roman Catholic Church, the other religions would trouble my mind so much in the choice I would have to make that I could never make it with any peace of soul; for I would always have to doubt which of so many and so different religions is the true and sanctifying one.
In consideration of this, I resolved to absolutely reject any sect or religion in which I noticed some error contrary to faith and reason. Therefore, adhering to the principles laid down at the beginning of this discourse, I examined different dogmas of the modern religions that are opposed to the Roman Catholic religion. Considering them each in particular, I read, for the first example, this argument:
"God is of infinite wisdom and goodness. He has given us commandments, for the transgression of which He punishes men very severely, even eternally."
Therefore, these commandments must be such that, with the help of His grace, one can fulfill them. Otherwise, He would not be a very wise legislator, nor a very good Lord, if He eternally punished men for not having accomplished them. For no one will say that a master is very wise and very good if he commanded his servant things absolutely impossible, such as stopping the course of the sun, touching the sky with his finger, and who, for failing to do so, would punish this servant very rigorously and condemn him to extraordinary torments.
Now, God is a very wise legislator, as He is also of infinite goodness and clemency. Therefore, He has not commanded us things that, by His grace, we cannot execute. Consequently, the doctrine of all innovators is false when they maintain that it is impossible for us, even with the grace of God, to do what He has commanded.
As I deeply examined the dogmas of the Protestants, I found in them several paradoxes quite incredible, entirely contrary to right reason. For example: the followers of the so-called reformed religion teach, among other errors, that all sins are equal, and that there is no such thing as venial sin.
Upon which I reasoned thus: An idle word is a sin, since the Savior tells us that we will have to give an account for it on the day of judgment. Therefore, according to the doctrine of the innovators, this sin must be equal in gravity to all other sins, to blasphemy, to apostasy, etc. If the sin of an idle word is as enormous as all those, it therefore deserves as much punishment and as much pain. It will be equally remissible and irremissible.
It is therefore forgiven as difficultly as other sins. However, the Savior Himself teaches us, Matthew 5:22, that a movement of anger against one's neighbor indeed merits some punishment, but that an insulting word merits a greater one. Furthermore, Saint John says in his first Epistle, chapter 5, verse 16: There is a sin that leads to death. From which it follows that there is a sin that does not lead to death. Therefore, all sins are not equal.
Besides this, there is a sin that is forgiven neither in this world nor in the next, such as the sin against the Holy Spirit. Finally, we read in Proverbs, chapter 24, verse 16: The just man falls seven times and rises again; but the wicked are precipitated into evil. There are therefore sins that do not deprive us of habitual justice, and there are those that do deprive us of it. Consequently, all sins are not equal. And, by a necessary consequence, one must reject the sect or religion that teaches the contrary.
According to the same sectarians, all good works are sins, and all sins are equally grievous. Therefore, according to them, all our good works must have the enormity of all possible sins. Consequently, praying to God is as great a sin as blaspheming Him; giving alms to a poor person is as great a crime as taking from him what he has; restoring another's property is as condemnable as retaining it against his will.
What likelihood is there? To press the argument a little further, I would very much like to hear what one of their preachers would answer to a man who asked him if he should return to the owner property of which he was unjustly deprived. If he says yes, the unjust possessor could ask him if it is a good work to restore another's property. If the preacher assures him that it is a good work, the other could reply:
"According to you, all our good works are sins; moreover, according to your doctrine, all sins are of equal enormity. Therefore, whether I restore or retain another's property, it is all the same as regards the gravity of the sin."
I will therefore keep for my own profit what I hold to the detriment of my neighbor. Having well considered these two things, I judged that they were equally impertinent and extravagant, as well as the sects that teach them. God is sovereign holiness. That being so, He is infinitely removed from all sin, He hates it above all things. If this is so, He therefore does not will that one commit it, He does not command it to be done, and one cannot impute it to Him in any way. From which it follows that God is neither the author nor the cause of sin, willing it, suggesting it, effecting it, commanding it, hoping for it, and regulating in this the criminal designs of the impious, as the Calvinists teach, and as Luther himself taught.
I read and reread a multitude of histories and writings, to see if, before the fifteenth century, I could find anywhere mention made of Lutheran and Calvinist doctrine and the other sects of this time. I remained convinced that all these religions did not come from the apostles, but that they were of new fabrication, and consequently should be rejected.
In his twentieth consideration, the Duke of Brunswick speaks of a Calvinist pamphlet he had read in his youth. It claimed to show that in all centuries there had been Lutheran-Calvinists. Which, first of all, is a contradictory thing: for Lutherans and Calvinists being opposed to each other on several points, it is a contradiction that there should ever have been Calvinists who were at the same time Lutherans and vice versa.
Furthermore, the pamphleteer reasoned in an absurd manner. He ranked among his Lutheran-Calvinists the most famous popes and cardinals, including Bellarmine. Luther and Calvin, he said, spoke against bad priests and bad Catholics. Now popes and cardinals speak likewise. Therefore, popes and cardinals are Lutheran-Calvinists.
The Duke of Brunswick then made for himself an abbreviated history of all the ancient heresies, which proved incomparably more useful to him. For, he said, I found that almost all the dogmas upheld by Lutherans and Calvinists had been taught in the past by certain heresiarchs and condemned by the Church.
Not that there was found one who taught all these articles and in the same manner as Luther and Calvin (for there was absolutely never such a one), but rather, that some heresiarchs taught some of them, and that at different times.
Also read | The Middle Ages, Root of All French Liberties
But no man of good sense will conclude from this that Lutheran or Calvinist doctrine existed before Luther and Calvin. This only proves that the religion patched together by Luther and Calvin is a complication of various old and condemned heresies, somewhat resembling the garment of a beggar who finds in a second-hand shop enough to clothe himself in old rags of all sorts of colors, which he mends with some pieces of new cloth, of a color and quality completely disproportionate.
Source: Motifs qui ont ramené à l’Église Catholique des protestants – Abbé Rohrbacher – 1850