This isn’t speculation. It is possible to prove by reason that few are saved. Again, I think it would be best to believe few are saved, because the saved believed that! All of the saints throughout history have said that few are saved. The doctors and fathers of the church believed few were saved. I think it would be best to follow the great theologians and doctors of the church than to believe in our own personal opinion.All people hear God’s call through the voice of conscience. If we conclude that that only a literal few among the many (each and every one of us) who are called by God get to Heaven, then we must assume that the majority of people who have existed chose to reject the damning voice of their conscience to their dying day. This is something no human being could possibly ever know with absolute certainty unless they received by reliable confirmation, if that could indeed be established, which I doubt, a private revelation from God Himself who alone knows. All we can do is just needlessly speculate on a matter which really isn’t any of our business. What we must be concerned with is the fact that many souls do end up in Hell, and that our own souls might end up there as well if we fail to persevere in faith,. Our business is to constantly pray for the graces we all need to get to Heaven and to repent and make reparation for our sins and those of others through personal sacrifice. This question supersedes the Church’s teaching authority to define dogma, and so we will never know with the certainty of faith whether literally only a few souls enter Heaven. What is dogma is the existence of Purgatory, and for this reason I am inclined to believe that more souls get to Heaven than they would if Purgatory never existed.
You have searched me, Lord,
and you know me.
You know when I sit and when I rise;
you perceive my thoughts from afar.
You discern my going out and my lying down;
you are familiar with all my ways.
Before a word is on my tongue
you, Lord, know it completely.
Psalm 139, 1-4
PAX
:heaven:
By this reasoning the fact that only two people out of over 600,000 entered the Promised Land would be considered a “complete victory for Satan.” The fact that only eight were saved out of a global flood would be considered a “complete victory for Satan.” Scripture clearly indicates to us that few are saved. It has nothing to do with any sort of “victory” for Satan and everything to do with man’s choice to rebel against God.On another of your points: if only 1% were saved, would that not be a complete victory for Satan? Imagine if 99% of your divinely, eternally created souls went to waste in Hell.
I know it’s only a guess, but that represents the vast, overwhelming bulk of humanity. What a waste. What a disaster of cosmic proportions. It would make a mockery of all creation, I think.
How could you possibly prove by reasoning that a specific percentage of all the human beings who have ever existed in time are either saved or lost permanently? To reach a statistic we would have to survey the number of all the people who have repented of their grave sins against God and their neighbour, which is an impossible human feat. How could reasoning serve our objective when we are unable to even deduce whether a person has died in the state of sanctifying grace? The administration of the final sacrament is a visible sign only. However, what determines whether the soul is saved or lost is the interior disposition of the individual, which God alone knows. Meanwhile the Magisterium of the Church does teach that non-Catholics and non-Christians can be saved. The activity of the Holy Spirit and the grace of God are not physically confined to the actual administration of the seven sacraments. Nor shall Christ judge all the living and the dead on the basis of their religious persuasion, but rather on their deeds and how they conducted their lives.This isn’t speculation. It is possible to prove by reason that few are saved.
The Catholic Church does not profess to know with infallible certainty that any of her canonized saints have actually entered Heaven. She knows only with a moral certainty that they have. By moral certainty we mean that it would be rash to believe otherwise given the signs of credibility. When the Pope canonizes a saint, he does not make a declaration ‘Ex-Cathedra’ as if he were defining a dogma such as the communion of saints in Heaven. With regard to deciding who should be declared a saint and part of this communion, the Pope is acting in a non-infallible capacity. Again, only God can know, as well as the souls there, which saints are actually in Heaven.Again, I think it would be best to believe few are saved, because the saved believed that!
St. Paul wrote that “all Israel will be saved” (cf. Rom 11:12). The Greek word for ‘all’ is pantes, which implies that there will be exceptions among all the Israelites. We mustn’t take this word literally as to mean every single Jew. These saints , too, may not have meant literally a tiny percentage of the entire human population in time, but could have been speaking figuratively to imply that not enough people will be saved as God desires they should be (cf. 1 Tim. 2:4).All of the saints throughout history have said that few are saved.
The individual theological opinions of the Church Fathers and Doctors are fallible. So there is a margin for error.The doctors and fathers of the church believed few were saved. I think it would be best to follow the great theologians and doctors of the church than to believe in our own personal opinion.
Where has the Magisterium said or even suggested that more than a small minority enter heaven? Where has the Magisterium condemned this expert theological opinion, which so many saints judged - far from scandalous - but actually prudent to teach? You are putting yourself above the Fathers, Doctors and many saints of the Church.There you go again. Did you not read the post that said,
"No pope is bound by any doctor of the church, any saint or any miracle or a private apparition. All revelation comes from Christ. All law comes from Christ and it is written in the heart of the pope."
You persist in putting saints above the Magisterium. Can’t be done! I don’t care what St. Leonard said - he has no Papal Authority to make his opinion override the Church’s teaching. If you persist, my man, you are the one who is resisting the Holy Spirit, and worse yet, scandalizing Christ’s little ones. And we know what Jesus said will happen to them.
You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that warning about hell is a sin. A priest who does not warn about hell is not teaching the Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ.Let’s take the example from Ready’s list of saints. View #3, alleging that St. John of the Cross, Doctor of the Church, warned about hell. I am a Carmelite dedicated to study of the writings of this Order’s three Doctors. In all 706 pages of his “Collected Works,” there is only this one single sentence (#72) in the “[Minor Works](http://www.jesus-passion.com/Minor_Works_StJohn.htm#SAYINGS OF LIGHT AND LOVE)” out of the entire magnitude of his words. The one who repeats these quotations from saints has diligently looked for a needle in a huge haystack consisting of the most edifying and beautiful writings, in order to emphasize this insidious agenda, extremely out of context to the whole teaching of the particular saint.
I have read many, many writings of Doctors of the Church who have written magnificent beauty for our benefit, and it is a drop of water in an ocean to try to find excerpts on hell. How sick is the mentality of anyone that attempts to bring a soul to Christ by using threats of hell. Pope Pius XII and others specifically denounced any attempt to convert a soul using this deplorable means. See Mystici Corporis, #104.
Though We desire this unceasing prayer to rise to God from the whole Mystical Body in common, that all the straying sheep may hasten to enter the one fold of Jesus Christ, yet We recognize that this must be done of their own free will; for no one believes unless he wills to believe. Hence they are most certainly not genuine Christians who against their belief are forced to go into a church, to approach the altar and to receive the Sacraments; for the “faith without which it is impossible to please God” is an entirely free “submission of intellect and will.” Therefore, whenever it happens, despite the constant teaching of this Apostolic See, that anyone is compelled to embrace the Catholic faith against his will, Our sense of duty demands that We condemn the act. For men must be effectively drawn to the truth by the Father of light through the spirit of His beloved Son, because, endowed as they are with free will, they can misuse their freedom under the impulse of mental agitation and base desires.
Another saint mentioned was Alphonsus Liguori. Again, one little needle among the ocean of beauty was pulled out of context. Read his true sentiments:
Further, in chapter 6 [he quotes the Council of Trent here] it says that sinners are put in a fit state to receive justification by hope in God through the merits of Jesus Christ: “They are raised to hope, trusting that God will be merciful to them through Christ.” [Sess. 6, c. 6] Now, if Jesus Christ had not applied to all the merits of His Passion, then, since no one [without a special revelation] could be certain of being among the number of those to whom the Redeemer had willed to apply the fruit of His merits, no sinner could entertain such hope, not having the certain and secure foundation which is necessary for hope; namely, that God wills all men to be saved, and will pardon all sinners prepared for it by the merits of Jesus Christ.
You may want to read some of these saints’ writings, and I’ll bet the farm that you will not find such sentiments, other than an isolated comment taken out of context to the whole of their words… Check them out.
In the end, you must remember that the Church has the authentic interpretation and teaching, and no saint or Doctor of the Church is above the Magisterium.
The sources for our modern English translations of the NT are the Greek manuscripts, so one can easily misunderstand words in the sacred text by applying modern English meanings to them. The word “many”, for instance, has different meanings in Greek and English. In the English language “many” is restrictive, whereas in Greek it is inclusive. Thus if I said in my native English tongue, “Many of the spectators in the circus cheered when the dancing horses came into the ring,” it would imply that most of the spectators did not join in. If I said the same thing with Greek being my mother language, I would be implying that practically everyone cheered except some people. I would not mean to imply that most of the people didn’t cheer, save a large group of spectators. So what Jesus means to say is that the gift of salvation is for everyone, but some people will not follow the path that leads to it. In the parable of the Wedding Banquet Jesus says, “Many are called, but few are chosen.” Similarly he means to say, as it is meant to be understood in the Greek translation of the original Hebrew text, that everyone is called by God and given sufficient grace to respond to His call. The chosen are those who respond to God’s call by opening themselves to the help of His grace. Everyone is called, but some people obstinately refuse to accept God’s invitation to be saved by their own fault. These are the ones who are not chosen to enter the marriage feast of the Lamb. Scripture simply reveals that out of the entire human population some people will be saved while some people won’t be.Our Lord said “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.”
Thus “few” will be saved, while “many” will be damned; the clear sense of this passage is that more will be damned than saved. Salvation is not easy, but is only achieved by grace and walking the narrow path. I don’t see many walking the narrow path, including myself, which fills me with fear of the judgment of our most just Judge.
The reality of infallibility needs to be known and understood:Good Fella #102
The Catholic Church does not profess to know with infallible certainty that any of her canonized saints have actually entered Heaven.
First of all, we don’t have to survey everyone who died whether or not they went to heaven to prove that few are saved. There is history. Only 8 people out of he entire human race in Noah’s time were saved. Only 2 Hebrews out of 2 million made it to the Promised Land, and only 4 were saved out of the entire city of Sodom. What does this mean? There are very few who sincerely renounce the world. Therefore, few are saved. This, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, is because eternal beatitude surpasses the natural state. Basically, we have a fallen nature, and since our nature hasn’t changed, we will repeat the same pattern that few are saved.How could you possibly prove by reasoning that a specific percentage of all the human beings who have ever existed in time are either saved or lost permanently? To reach a statistic we would have to survey the number of all the people who have repented of their grave sins against God and their neighbour, which is an impossible human feat. How could reasoning serve our objective when we are unable to even deduce whether a person has died in the state of sanctifying grace? The administration of the final sacrament is a visible sign only. However, what determines whether the soul is saved or lost is the interior disposition of the individual, which God alone knows. Meanwhile the Magisterium of the Church does teach that non-Catholics and non-Christians can be saved. The activity of the Holy Spirit and the grace of God are not physically confined to the actual administration of the seven sacraments. Nor shall Christ judge all the living and the dead on the basis of their religious persuasion, but rather on their deeds and how they conducted their lives.
The Catholic Church does not profess to know with infallible certainty that any of her canonized saints have actually entered Heaven. She knows only with a moral certainty that they have. By moral certainty we mean that it would be rash to believe otherwise given the signs of credibility. When the Pope canonizes a saint, he does not make a declaration ‘Ex-Cathedra’ as if he were defining a dogma such as the communion of saints in Heaven. With regard to deciding who should be declared a saint and part of this communion, the Pope is acting in a non-infallible capacity. Again, only God can know, as well as the souls there, which saints are actually in Heaven.
St. Paul wrote that “all Israel will be saved” (cf. Rom 11:12). The Greek word for ‘all’ is pantes, which implies that there will be exceptions among all the Israelites. We mustn’t take this word literally as to mean every single Jew. These saints , too, may not have meant literally a tiny percentage of the entire human population in time, but could have been speaking figuratively to imply that not enough people will be saved as God desires they should be (cf. 1 Tim. 2:4).
The apostle also wrote: ‘I, too, try to please everyone in everything I do. I don’t just do what is best for me; I do what is best for others so that many may be saved’ (1 Cor. 10:33), and: ‘To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.’ (1 Cor. 9:22). Paul was inspired to write this letter by the Holy Spirit, and so it belongs to the canon of Scripture which is part of the deposit of faith. His statements contain infallible truths which must be correctly interpreted by the Church through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. So what has God publicly revealed to us through His written word presented to us by Paul? The Greek word for “many” is pollon. What it denotes is that much of the population which the apostle reaches out to in his public ministry may possibly be saved through his endeavours as a “co-worker with God” (cf. 1 Cor 3:9). Now the apostle never claimed to know that much of the people he preached to would in fact be saved; nor does the Greek word imply that most people shall be saved through Paul’s gospel message or that most people have the chance to be saved. On the contrary, every human being has that chance offered to them as is evident in Paul’s Second Letter to Timothy. But it is important to note that Paul does not write ‘that few might be saved’. If he believed that the percentage of the saved population was remarkably and tragically tiny, and God willed to reveal this, he would have written that. He wasn’t inspired to write that at all. The truth is that many people might be saved, and that’s that! This is what God has chosen to reveal to us in His written word. It isn’t only a few who might be saved. Some, but not all.
The individual theological opinions of the Church Fathers and Doctors are fallible. So there is a margin for error.
PAX
:heaven:
by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith*]The reality of infallibility needs to be known and understood:
Answer by David Gregson of EWTN on Nov-22-2002: **
“You are correct in stating that the Pope exercises his charism of infallibility not only in dogmatic definitions issued, ex cathedra, as divinely revealed (of which there have been only two), but also in doctrines definitively proposed by him, also ex cathedra, which would include **canonizations **(that there are in fact Saints, enjoying the Beatific Vision in heaven), moral teachings (such as contained in Humanae vitae), and other doctrines he has taught as necessarily connected with truths divinely revealed, such as that priestly ordination is reserved to men. Further details on levels of certainty with which the teachings of the Magisterium (either the Pope alone, or in company with his Bishops) may be found in Summary of Categories of Belief.”
tinyurl.com/kllbjdt
The three levels of teaching are:
1) Dogma – infallible (Canon #750.1) to be believed with the assent of divine and Catholic faith.
2) Doctrine – infallible (Canon #750.2) requires the assent of ecclesial faith, to be “firmly embraced and held”.
3) Doctrine – non-definitive (non-infallible) and requires intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium *25), not an assent of faith. [See the *Explanatory Note on ATF
:thumbsup:I’m with the saints, not with the non-saints!Why is it that so many saints say that few are saved and so many non saints say that many are saved?
Who is more worthy to be believed–if not with a divine assent of faith–then certainly with an assent of human belief?
Jesus refers to himself as The Good Shepherd. Since we are sheep (Is. 53), we must enter by Him because He is the “gate” by which we must go through in order to enter His pasture/heaven. Thus, you cannot attain salvation by any other means but Him. Therefore, you must believe in Him, know Him, and follow His commandments which are outlined in the Bible. I know most Catholics mean well with their faith, however they seem to first resort to and follow the teachings and commandments of men (Acts 5:29) rather than looking to the actual Word of God for instruction, insight, wisdom, Truth etc.Can someone explain this scripture to me:
“Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.”
There was another scripture I read that was similar. Does this mean only a few people will enter Heaven?
Since we have veered off topic, I’ll refrain from discussing your citations and extending our argument and simply present and comment on the formula used in the act of canonization, which is:**SAINT JOHN PAUL II
Apostolic Letter Motu Proprio
AD TUENDAM FIDEM, **…
…Apostolic Letter Ad Tuendam Fidem, 1998 (ATF), which requires the assent of divine and Catholic faith to believe (credenda sunt)** dogmas (a category one truth) **(Canon #750.1).
A category 2 truth requires the assent of ecclesial faith, as a secondary truth, “proposed definitively” definitive proponuntur to be “firmly embraced and held” (now Canon 750.2)…ATF better enables Canon Law to apply to the understanding of infallibility including the Profession of Faith covering the two categories of infallible doctrine.,
So the Pope’s ‘ex cathedra’ definitions may be either of revealed dogma, to be believed with divine faith, or of other truths necessary for guarding and expounding revealed truth. Vatican Council II and the post-conciliar Magisterium have explicitly affirmed that both ecclesial and papal infallibility extend to the secondary doctrinal truths necessary for guarding and expounding revelation. …
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio fidei
**“With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, **the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts), ****the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations.”
**Real Catholics not only pay attention to the Magisterium, they assent to all doctrine and dogma. Denial is dissent. There is absolutely no justification for dissent. **
Such suppositions deny the authoritative clarification of the teaching of the Magisterium.Good Fella #113
The election of the pontiff and the canonization of saints are indeed dogmatic facts which are to be definitively held just as the non-infallible teachings (i.e., Mary, co-Redemptrix) of the ordinary magisterium are, but the Church is in no position to infallibly declare which individual saints actually are in heaven as surely as Jesus and Mary are. A saint’s actually being in heaven is not a secondary doctrinal truth safeguarded and expounded by the Church. And the act of canonization itself is not a teaching on matters of faith and morals.
Such confusion and dissent against the Magisterium has been exposed and condemned by St John Paul II:When the pope canonizes someone a saint, he acts as the head ruling authority of the Church and exercises his prudential judgment with the assistance of the Holy Spirit. The charism of infallibilty does not necessarily apply.
The actual canonization of saints falls under the temporal ruling authority of the Church, not the spiritual authority of the Magisterium, the teaching office of the Church. The term ‘dogmatic facts’ refers to a teaching and doctrine which has been defined by the Magisterium. It’s a dogmatic fact that anyone who dies in the state of sanctity shall be saved and go to heaven and join the communion of saints. What isn’t a dogmatic fact is that a particular individual really is in heaven. To infallibly judge and rule that Maria Goretti really is in heaven, this being a secondary object of papal infallibility according to your reasoning, it must be at least implicity evident in Scripture and Tradition that this individual saint herself is in fact in heaven just as Jesus, Mary, and all the saints recorded in Scripture really are. We mustn’t confuse the temporal ruling authority of the Church with its spiritual teaching authority, which is what you are doing.Such suppositions deny the authoritative clarification of the teaching of the Magisterium.
Doctrine – infallible (Canon #750.2) requires the assent of ecclesial faith, to be "firmly embraced and held". Good Fella’s fundamental error lies in the presumption that the canonization of saints is indeed a dogmatic fact “to be definitively held just as the non-infallible teachings”, thus presuming that the teaching is non-infallible – thus misinterpreting the doctrine and ridiculing the expressed teaching of St John Paul II in his Apostolic Letter Ad Tuendam Fidem, as well as confusing dogmas with non-infallible teachings.
In fact, the 1983 revision of Canon Law had replaced in #749.3 “dogmatically declared or defined” with “infallibly defined”, thus NOT expressing a limitation of infallibility to dogmas. ATF better enables Canon Law to apply to the understanding of infallibility including the Profession of Faith covering the two categories of infallible doctrine.
In reality,** Doctrine – non-definitive (non-infallible) requires intellectual assent *(“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25), NOT an assent of faith, requiring only intellectual assent, and thus is NOT the same as the infallible canonization of saints. [See the Explanatory Note on ATF by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith]
There is no right to dissent and, in fact, this is because the teaching of Vatican II in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 25, is clear as to even non-infallible doctrine on faith or morals:
- ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM
Such confusion and dissent against the Magisterium has been exposed and condemned by St John Paul II:
There has never been, and is no, “licit dissent” as Pope John Paul II has confirmed: “It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is totally compatible with being a ‘good Catholic’ and poses no obstacle to the reception of the sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching office of the bishops of the United States and elsewhere.” [Meeting with US Bishops at Our Lady Queen of Angels Minor Seminary, Los Angeles, Sept 16, 1987].
“This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme Magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.”
False.Good Fella #115
your argument is a red herring.
, 1992, p 42]. Thus there are several infallible papal definitions of doctrine.False.
As Fr Brian Harrison has so succinctly remarked: Infallibility is far too important to be left to “the long-standing confusion (even amongst orthodox theologians)…and the resulting widespread (though clearly false) impression that it [the Vatican I dogma] guarantees infallibility only for ‘de fide’ definitions of revealed truth, or of heresies which directly oppose it.” [Fr Brian Harrison, O.S., *The Ex Cathedra Status of Humanae Vitae
- The reality is that it is NOT MY ARGUMENT, it is the deliberate acceptance and explanation of the Papal teaching of St John Paul II by none other than Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI as Josef Cardinal Ratzinger on June 29, 1998, who taught clearly the reality that “the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts) are to be held definitively” so “Good Fella” would deny also Canon 750 § 2:
“Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.”