Few Catholics Will be Saved

On the Fewness of the Saved in Scripture, Tradition, and Theology

The Fewness of the Saved

“Do not believe me, but the Fathers; hear from them what the narrow way is.” (Contenson, Theologia mentis et cordis, lib. II, diss. VI, c. 2)

“Since we are debtors both to the wise and to the unwise, and since besides the settling of this question can be useful for stirring up in us the fear of God… I am pleased to show that the opinion which asserts that among Christians and the faithful the reprobate are far more numerous than the elect is more in accord with Scripture, with the holy Fathers, and with Church history than the other opinion, which teaches that the number of the elect exceeds the multitude of the reprobate.” (Gonet, Clypeus theologiae thomisticae, tract. V, De praedestinatione, disp. 4, digr. 2)

“Whoever, amid the uncertainty of this question, wishes to enter upon a sure road, let him conclude practically that the stricter road is the one he must choose for himself, firmly holding that he who lives well dies well, but fearing lest, if he shall have lived as most men live, he be damned perhaps along with most men.” (Theologia ad usum seminarii Mechliniensis, De Deo, n. 50)

“The kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.” (Matt. 11:12)

“There are then two things we must consider carefully. Since there are many who are called but few who are chosen, the first thing is that no one should be presumptuous about himself. Even though he has already been called to the faith, he does not know whether he may be considered worthy of the eternal kingdom. Secondly, no one should presume to despair of a neighbor, even if he sees him steeped in vice. He does not know the riches of the divine mercy.” (Pope St. Gregory the Great, Hom. 19 on the Gospels)

“There is a way which seemeth to a man just; but the ends thereof lead to death.” (Prov. 14:12)

Introduction

When considering the question of the fewness of the saved, theologians commonly distinguish between two central questions:

1. Whether most of mankind is damned?

2. Whether most adult Catholics are damned?

The first question is far easier than the second. Before the eighteenth century, theologians answered with uniformity on this first point. The tradition that was passed down to them was clear and certain: most of mankind will be damned. In the eighteenth century, a certain theologian named Gravina (not to be confused with Dominic Gravina) attempted to lower this unshakeable certainty by simply claiming that, while the contrary is more probable, it is in some degree probable that the greater number of mankind is elect rather than reprobate (in the fifth chapter of Plazza’s Dissertatio de Paradiso). In response to this mild suggestion, the Apostolic See was quick to condemn the thesis by a decree of the Congregation of the Index of May 22, 1772, as noted by Hurter (Theologiae dogmaticae compendium, t. II, n. 145) and many other theologians.

The second question, on the other hand, has a quite different history. As Estius notes in his treatment of the matter, on the question of whether more adult Catholics are damned than saved, the Fathers are unanimous: “nor indeed is any of the Fathers found who has written the contrary” (In I Sent., d. 40, § 203). The same is noted by many of the supporters of this doctrine, as was demonstrated at length by Verschueren (Via arcta coeli asserta), Foggini (De paucitate adultorum fidelium salvandorum mira consensio), Godts (De paucitate salvandorum quid docuerunt sancti), and others.

After the Reformation, this doctrine began to be questioned by a handful of theologians who presented their position moderately and with erudition (although, it is important to note, many of them conceded the opposite to be the more common opinion and the doctrine of the Fathers). The illustrious name of Francisco Suárez is often unfairly added to this number. The great Doctor Eximius treats this question in his De divina praedestinatione et reprobatione (lib. VI, c. 3) and distinguishes quite cleanly between three questions:

1. Whether the number of the elect is greater than the reprobate, considering the angels alone? Affirmative.

2. Whether the number of the elect is greater than the reprobate, considering the entirety of mankind? Negative.

3. Whether the number of the elect is greater than the reprobate among Christians? Distinguish.

Those who are merely casual readers of the problems of theology, simply seeking precedent to conform their opinions rather than doctors to learn from, might be quite surprised by the refusal of Suárez to plainly state concedo on this point. If we truly follow the mind of the great Suárez, we will find that his position is more nuanced than many interpreters (both friend and foe) have allowed him to be.

Suárez distinguishes among “Christians” two distinct groups:

1. Heretics, apostates, schismatics, and depraved Catholics (those who live and die badly).

2. Other Catholics.

Based on this distinction, it seems quite evident from Fr. Suárez’s treatment that it has nothing in common with the many lax and benign interpretations given to his doctrine by many moderns. Further, it seems particular enough as not to fall under any condemnation as contrary to the universal consensus of the Fathers (for, the Fathers are less clear on this particular point). Hence, we are forced to ask the question of Godts: “Does Suárez then, in what follows, exclude those Catholics who die badly (whom he had just reckoned among the apostates) and understand as ‘Catholics’ only those who die holily?” (De paucitate salvandorum, c. 4)

This position of Suárez is quite clear from the context of his comment. First, he never denies the traditional exegesis of the relevant texts, nor the authority of the Fathers and theologians, calling their position “truer” (rather, he seeks to “reconcile” these authorities with a certain reality, i.e., the efficacy of the sacraments). Second, when he states his position, he was just in the midst of reporting the position of Cajetan (In Matt. 25:1–2) that, just as only half of the virgins are wise, so also (as Suárez reports) only half of those who live indifferently in the Church and “take some care of their conscience” will be saved. It is this position that he calls “very rigorous,” and against it that he states his own.

When he describes the grounds for his own position, he very clearly describes the individuals who are mostly saved in a way quite similar to how Cajetan describes the ten virgins:

“As for adults, although the greater part of men sin mortally rather often, yet they also rise again rather often, and so pass their life by falling and rising again. But at the last, at the end, few are they who are not prepared for death through the Sacraments and do not grieve for their sins, at least by attrition: and this suffices for their being justified at that time. And once they are justified, they are commonly able to persevere easily, for that short space, without a new mortal sin. Therefore, all things weighed, it is likely that more of these Christians are saved.” (ibid., n. 6)

What could be clearer? Suárez, taking the state of the question from Cajetan, only describes a part of the Catholic Church, i.e., those who take some (quite imperfect) care of their conscience in life and die with the sacraments. Those who live in habitual mortal sin (i.e., do not pass their lives in “rising and falling again”) or are not prepared for death through the sacraments are not included by Suárez in this question.

Hence, those Benignists who promise salvation to the majority of Catholics (or, according to some, almost all) gain nothing from the extrinsic authority of Suárez, who was careful to confine his opinion within the mind of the holy Fathers.

Yet, what are we to make of Suárez’s thesis? Clearly, it is not so explicitly against the consensus of the Fathers as the modern Benignists are; hence, it would be quite inappropriate to censure it as anything except a thesis that is less common or less probable. Yet, this does not mean that there is no room for legitimate disagreement with Fr. Suárez, only a mitigated one. The real question concerns a certain practical judgment: whether those who live and die falling and rising from mortal sin to a state of grace are saved more numerously (Suárez), equally (Cajetan), or less numerously (the common opinion).

It is my firm persuasion that, when the Doctors and Fathers of the Church are consulted, along with the principles given in Sacred Scripture and genuine theological reason, Suárez’s thesis must be rejected.

The refutation of Suárez’s unique thesis is quite simple, laid out by Álvarez:

“As to the objection about those who receive the Sacraments of the Church at the point of death, the answer is that, if the matter is rightly considered, very many Christians die without receiving the Sacraments at all; and granting that the greater part do receive the sacraments at the point of death, fewer prepare themselves to receive the effect of the sacraments.” (De auxiliis, lib. V, disp. 43)

One of the greatest refutations of Suárez’s theory comes from another Jesuit who was quite familiar with Suárez, Cornelius a Lapide. In his commentary on James 2:13, he provides a lengthy disputation on this matter, refuting Suárez’s argument from the authority of the Fathers. The principal argument, drawn from the Fathers, is succinctly set forth by the Roman Breviary, taken from St. Bernard: “Does the death of Christ deliver from eternal death those who live badly right up to death?” (Matins Office of the Sepulchre of Our Lord, Lesson 4)

This is stated with certainty by that immortal principle of the Fathers, as a man has lived, so will he die: “By far the greater part of Christians live in a state of mortal sin: for according to St. Augustine’s rule, as a man has lived, so he dies, so that rarely does one who has lived ill, die well, and vice versa.” (a Lapide, In Iac. 2:13) This principle is often repeated by the authors on this point.

Yet, the objection comes: “Is it not true that many die with the sacraments?” Very true, although not all; yet this is not what is up for dispute. To this objection, many theologians, exegetes, and saints respond with one voice in saying that the conversion of the deathbed often lacks the requisite conditions for a valid confession. As a Lapide argues, of those who receive the sacraments, most who live in such a state receive them invalidly for numerous reasons and hence do not expiate their sins:

1. Many labor under culpable ignorance of the articles of the faith and other truths that they are bound to know explicitly.

2. Many are ignorant of the necessity of a firm purpose of amendment for the validity of the sacrament; and, of those who do know this, many “do not know how strong and constant a resolution of soul is required for the resolution to be deemed absolute and effective” (ibid.).

3. A Lapide confirms this by experience on the basis of the effects of yearly confessions. How frequently does someone who lives in habitual mortal sin come to the confessional as a matter of duty once a year? Countless times. How often is their purpose of amendment genuine? “By their fruits, you will know them.” If the vast majority are almost immediately plunged back into habitual mortal sin, how are we to conclude that the purpose of amendment was sufficiently firm?

Yet, you may object (and many followers of Suárez did) that such is not the case on the deathbed, where the hearts of many are quite open to God and contrite for past sins. Yet, the wisdom of Scripture and the saints refutes this line of reasoning, along with the testimony of reason and experience.

As Ven. Louis of Granada and Cardinal Bona (among others) point out (The Sinner’s Guide; Principia et documenta vitae christianae), in 2 Maccabees 9, the wicked King Antiochus feels the pangs of death, and cries out to God: “It is right to be subject to God, and no mortal should think that he is equal to God.” (v. 12)

More than this, he made many vows to God, promising aid to the people of God and to make many offerings to God in his Temple. More than all of this, the King promised that “he also would become a Jew and would visit every inhabited place to proclaim the power of God” (v. 17). How magnanimous! For those who rely on deathbed conversions, if there ever was one, this would be one of the greatest. Yet, what do the Scriptures say? “The abominable fellow made a vow to the Lord, who would no longer have mercy on him…” (v. 13)

According to the testimonies of the saints, this is not the exception; it is the general rule, giving way to only the most occasional outliers. One of the greatest testimonies to this comes from St. Alphonsus’s golden work, Preparation for Death. In the sixth consideration, on the death of the sinner, he treats the topic at hand:

“Were they at death even allowed time for repentance, who assures them that they will sincerely return to God? To conquer bad habits, St. Augustine had to fight against them for twelve years. How will the dying man, who has always lived in sin, be able, in the midst of the pains, the stupefaction, and the confusion of death, to repent sincerely of all his past iniquities? I say sincerely, because it is not enough to say and to promise with the tongue: it is necessary to promise with the heart. O God! What terror and confusion will seize the unhappy Christian who has led a careless life, when he finds himself overwhelmed with sins, with the fears of judgment, of hell, and of eternity! Oh! What confusion will these thoughts produce when the dying sinner will find his reason gone, his mind darkened, and his whole frame assailed by the pains of approaching death. He will make his confession; he will promise, weep, and seek mercy from God, but without understanding what he does; and in this tempest of agitation, of remorse, of pains and terrors, he will pass to the other life…A certain author says that the prayers, the wailings, and promises of dying sinners are like the tears and promises of a man assailed by an enemy who points a dagger to his throat to take away his life. Miserable the man who takes to his bed at enmity with God, and passes from the bed of sickness to eternity.”

In countless places, the same doctrine is preached by this great saint, most experienced in the direction of souls and knowledge of the interior life:

“St. Bernard says that the man who has been obstinate in sin during life, will make efforts, but without success, to get out of the state of damnation; and that, overwhelmed by his own malice, he will end his life in the same unhappy state. Having loved sin till death, he has also loved the danger of damnation. Hence the Lord will justly permit him to perish in that danger in which he has voluntarily lived till the end of his life. St. Augustine says that he who is abandoned by sin before he abandons it, will scarcely detest it as he ought; because what he will then do will be done through necessity…They will have recourse to God at death; but he will say to them: Why do you invoke me now? Call on creatures to assist you; for they have been your gods. The Lord will address them in this manner, because, in seeking him, they do not sincerely wish to be converted. St. Jerome says that he holds, and that he has learned from experience, that they who have to the end led a bad life, will not die a good death.” (ibid.)

St. Leonard of Port Maurice treated the same objection in his famous sermon on this topic (The Little Number of Those Who Are Saved):

“But you will say: Can penance not profitably repair the loss of innocence?…That is true, I admit. But I also know that penance is so difficult in practice…If you consider the sacrament of penance, there are so many distorted confessions, so many studied excuses, so many deceitful repentances, so many false promises, so many ineffective resolutions, so many invalid absolutions! Would you regard as valid the confession of someone who accuses himself of sins of impurity and still holds to the occasion of them? Or someone who accuses himself of obvious injustices with no intention of making any reparation whatsoever for them? Or someone who falls again into the same iniquities right after going to confession? Oh, horrible abuses of such a great sacrament! One confesses to avoid excommunication, another to make a reputation as a penitent. One rids himself of his sins to calm his remorse, another conceals them out of shame. One accuses them imperfectly out of malice, another discloses them out of habit. One does not have the true end of the sacrament in mind, another is lacking the necessary sorrow, and still another firm purpose. Poor confessors, what efforts you make to bring the greater number of penitents to these resolutions and acts, without which confession is a sacrilege, absolution a condemnation and penance an illusion?”

This is not even considering the presence of the deathbed, which St. Leonard says is even worse than confessions made in life:

“Where are they now, those who believe that the number of the saved among Christians is greater than that of the damned and who, to authorize their opinion, reason thus: the greater portion of Catholic adults die in their beds armed with the sacraments of the Church, therefore most adult Catholics are saved? Oh, what fine reasoning! You must say exactly the opposite. Most Catholic adults confess badly at death, therefore most of them are damned. I say ‘all the more certain,’ because a dying person who has not confessed well when he was in good health will have an even harder time doing so when he is in bed with a heavy heart, an unsteady head, a muddled mind; when he is opposed in many ways by still-living objects, by still-fresh occasions, by adopted habits, and above all by devils who are seeking every means to cast him into hell.” (ibid.)

Ven. Louis of Granada gives a compendious treatment of this doctrine in the twenty-fifth chapter of his Sinner’s Guide, where he sets out the following principle:

“We must bear in mind an undeniable principle, concerning which St. Augustine and all the holy Doctors are agreed—namely, that as true repentance is the work of God, so He can inspire it when and where He wills. Hence if the heart of the sinner, even at the hour of death, be filled with true contrition for his sins, it will avail him for salvation. But, to show you how rare such examples of repentance are, I shall give you the testimony of the Saints and Doctors of the Church.”

He demonstrates this rarity from a number of different Fathers: Ss. Augustine, Ambrose, Isidore, Eusebius, Gregory the Great, and others. He also proves this thesis from the teaching of the scholastics as well, reproducing the reasons of Bl. Scotus, which Ven. Louis explains in great detail (although I skip these explanations here):

“First, because the physical pains and weakness which precede death prevent a man from elevating his heart to God or fulfilling the duties of true repentance… The second reason given by Scotus is that repentance should be voluntary, not forced… The third reason is that a habit of sin confirmed by long indulgence accompanies man as inseparably as the shadow does the body, even to the tomb… The fourth reason given by Scotus is taken from the value of actions done at such a time; for it is manifest to all who have any knowledge of God that He is much less pleased with services offered at this hour than with the same services offered under different circumstances.”

The first reason is one that is frequently repeated by the saints. St. Claude de la Colombière, the great Apostle of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, states the following:

“People count a great deal upon what they intend to do at the hour of death. One confesses better then, I am willing to believe: but how many are there who then do not confess at all? Besides which, the sight of death adds nothing to a man’s ordinary dispositions but agitation, dread, and a wholly natural fear; and the proof of it is that when one comes back from that peril, and the fright has passed off, one goes on living as one had lived before.” (Migne, Orateurs sacrés, t. VII, cols. 1589–91)

Ven. Louis of Granada also demonstrates this from the words of the Old and New Testaments. Who is not aware of the many warnings in Sacred Scripture against putting off conversion, and of the promise that God will turn a blind eye to those who defer it? “Many will seek to enter and will not be able.” (Lk. 13:24) For those who wish to read the edifying, scripturally and patristically based, and theologically erudite explanation of this doctrine, there is no better source than Ven. Louis of Granada.

Even granting that such a genuine confession is made with the requisite attrition, including a firm purpose of amendment, even then salvation is quite rare:

“Granted that some, confessing in death, conceive a true resolution, yet after confession, if they lie sick for many days as commonly happens, the memory of former lusts, on which their mind was wont to feed, recurs and bends them to consent, so that they consent to a wicked thought and to morose delight in past and habitual unlawful pleasure; especially because the devil is then accustomed to throw the same thing before the mind and rub it raw, and most grievously to tempt the man in that last duel, and indeed in the very agony in which the soul departs from the body; for God by His just judgment permits this to the devil as a punishment for those crimes and negligence by which, while sound and vigorous, they took no care to mortify those lusts, but indulged them like horse and mule: hence then many succumb and perish, of which thing many sad examples remain.” (a Lapide, In Iac. 2:13)

Fr. Louis Bourdaloue, one of the greatest preachers of the seventeenth century, preached on this topic at length:

“If one were to fall back upon saying that it is death, after all, which decides the eternal lot of men, and that everything consists in dying in Christian dispositions: True, I would answer; but one can hardly hope to die in those Christian dispositions except after having lived in them; and since there are very few who live in them, I would conclude that there are very few who die in them.

It would be easy for me to destroy the false opinion of worldlings who persuade themselves that, in order to make a good end, it is only a question of receiving, in the extremity of illness, the last Sacraments of the Church and of giving certain signs of repentance. Ah, what illusions there are on this point! I should hardly dare to declare all that I think. It is not merely a question of receiving these Sacraments so holy, but they must be received holily, that is to say with a true conversion of the heart; and there is the point of the difficulty. Not being ignorant of what most of these conversions at death come down to, those hurried conversions, those conversions begun, carried out and consummated in the space of a few moments, when one hardly knows any longer what one is doing; those conversions which would be so many miracles, if they were good and true conversions; and knowing how much there often enters into them of policy, of worldly prudence, of ceremony, of human respect, of complaisance toward friends or relatives, of servile and wholly natural fear, of half-Christianity, I would hold to the judgment of St. Augustine, or rather to that of all the Fathers, and I would say in general that it is much to be feared that the penance of a dying man, who is penitent only at death, should die along with him, and that it should be a reprobate penance. To this almost infinite number of false penitents at death, I would still add the very considerable number of so many others whom death surprises, whom it carries off all at once, who die without Sacraments, without help, without consciousness, without any view of God or any sentiment of him. And from all this I would come, without hesitating, after the Saviour of the world, to this frightful consequence: Many are called, but few are chosen.” (Pensées sur le salut; Migne, Orateurs sacrés, t. XVI, col. 622)

This is also confirmed at length from reason, Scripture, and the Fathers by other theologians, such as Recupito, who gives many arguments and testimonies (De signis praedestinationis et de numero praedestinatorum), Turlot (Thesaurus doctrinae christianae, pt. 1, c. 13, lect. 5), and Dionysius of Werl (Pseudo-poenitens, c. 9).

St. Vincent Ferrer writes: “It would be a greater miracle that men who live badly should make a good end, than to raise the dead.” (Sermon 1 on the Nativity of the Virgin) St. Alphonsus echoes the same: “The sinner in his death shall seek God and shall not find him.” (Preparation for Death, consid. 6)

On Method

In this question, more than in any other, we ought to follow proper theological methodology with tranquility and objectivity. This is a mystery of the faith which we cannot know with certainty from experience. As St. Thomas and all theologians affirm, the precise number of the elect and reprobate is something known to God alone. What, then, are the grounds for answering this question?

Certain theologians took occasion of this fact to declare that this question is vain and ought not to be treated; even excellent theologians fell into such a sophism, such as the Salmanticenses (De praedestinatione, disp. 10, dub. 2) and Billuart (De Deo, diss. 9, a. 7), paving the way for the anti-Thomistic turn of Garrigou-Lagrange, Buonpensiere, Hugon, Doronzo, and many others. Yet there were always faithful Thomists in the school who continued to preach this truth ad mentem Thomae, such as Concina, Patuzzi, and many others.

They reason thus: St. Thomas did not treat of the precise number of the elect, therefore he did not treat of the number of the elect compared with the reprobate in the Church. Yet, this is a specious piece of reasoning that was already refuted centuries before St. Thomas’s birth in the distinction offered by St. Augustine (Contra Cresconium, III, 66; cf. De correptione et gratia, c. 10) and other Fathers between the absolute number of the elect (which is many) and the relative number of the elect (which is few). Therefore, we can simultaneously affirm that there are many elect (in an absolute sense), yet that there are few elect (compared to the reprobate).

Further, it is quite clear that St. Thomas did treat this question of the fewness of the saved within the Church, yet it is locked away in his commentaries on Scripture. Commenting on the classical locus “many are called, but few are chosen,” he writes: “those who believe with faith are all called; but those are chosen who do good works, and these are few” (Super Matt. 20, lect. 1). The same doctrine recurs in the other pleaces as well.

In such a difficult question, where do we turn? The Benignists turn to certain specious theological principles and congruities (e.g., “if Jesus Christ wins over Satan, then more will be saved”) or to certain logical leaps from authentic exegesis (e.g., “the entire world will be converted, therefore the majority will be saved”) or to principles of praxis that are contrary to good traditional ascetical and pastoral theology (e.g., “most who receive the sacrament of penance on their deathbed receive it fruitfully”).

Where are we to turn? In such a question, where can we even turn? We must turn to the Sacred Page. God is neither obligated by His nature to save the multitude, nor to damn the multitude. Nature, in us, is not positively and necessarily driven in the multitude of cases to salvation, nor is our nature so repugnant to it as to render it impossible in the majority of cases. The notion of salvation neither inclines us to the multitude, nor to the few.

How, then, can we discover an answer to such a perplexing question? Divine Revelation. How do good theologians determine such mysteries in light of Divine Revelation? By the exegesis of Scripture in light of the exegesis of the Fathers and Doctors, guided by the magisterium of the Church. Woe to anyone who attempts an answer to this question without heeding these principles!

As Estius notes, “Among the faithful themselves there are more evil than good, and hence more reprobate than elect (so that we may say nothing of experience, which in a matter of this sort can be deceptive in either direction); this is taught both by Scripture and by the authority of the Fathers.” (In I Sent., d. 40, § 203)

Godts (who always challenged his opponents to quote one saint) states it well: “It is the Saints, then, that I appeal to, not theologians of whatever sort; it is the testimony of the Saints in the matter of eternal salvation that I want, not that of innovators; to the Saints I most gladly give credence, and to their authority I confidently submit myself.” (De paucitate salvandorum, p. 46)

As Ruiz de Montoya and Concina note, the answers to these questions often come from an overly affective mind, crushed under the weight of so solemn a truth as the fewness of the saved in the Church (De praedestinatione, disp. 54, sect. 1). Yet, we will steer quite clear of this temptation if we follow the interpretation of Scripture according to the above principles. With this in mind, we will swerve neither to the right, nor to the left.

Here, I do not seek to give you a quote mine. The texts I referenced above (especially Godts and Foggini) already do this. Rather, what I seek to do is to synthesize the various witnesses together, laying out the various different points of texts and arguments that are referenced in this debate by these noble witnesses. If you wish to look for a section titled “Fathers,” you will not find one, because the doctrine of the Fathers is reproduced throughout, with their names referenced as thoroughly as possible at each instance.

Answering an Objection

Typically, when treating such a topic, the following objection comes up: “While the doctrine you write about may be true, it is such a crushing doctrine, especially to the scrupulous; therefore, you should not talk about it.”

To this I reply in a threefold way.

First, from the example of the saints. The saints never followed this carnal wisdom, but constantly preached this doctrine to the lay faithful in their age. Far from being discouraged, the topic of the fewness of the saved was a popular discourse for Septuagesima Sunday, as appears from many examples.

From the Fathers, we have St. Ephrem (De patientia; De paenitentia), St. Basil (the sermon De renuntiatione saeculi), St. Gregory Nazianzen (Orations 42 and 27), St. Ambrose (on Psalm 40, n. 7), St. John Chrysostom (24th Homily on Acts), St. Augustine (Sermon 111), St. Peter Chrysologus (Sermon 97), Pope St. Leo the Great (Sermon 49), St. Caesarius of Arles (the two sermons De duabus viis, arcta et lata: Serm. 67–68 among the works of St. Augustine), Pope St. Gregory the Great (Homilies 19 and 38 on the Gospels), Antiochus of Palestine (Homily 94), Bishop Haymo of Halberstadt (Homily 21, for Septuagesima Sunday), Ratherius of Verona (first sermon on the Ascension), St. Peter Damian (Sermon 32), Cardinal Godfrey of Vendôme (Sermon 5), Ven. Hildebert (sermon for Septuagesima), St. Bernard (third sermon on the Vigil of the Lord’s Nativity), Pope Innocent III (Sermon 10 for Septuagesima), etc.

After the age of the Fathers, this same practice was kept by various saints and other holy men, among them St. Anthony of Padua, St. Bonaventure, St. Vincent Ferrer (Sermon 1 for Septuagesima Sunday, Sermon 6, etc.), St. Bernardine of Siena (Sermon 23), St. Lawrence Justinian (De compunctione et complanctu christianae perfectionis), Bl. Denys the Carthusian (Sermon 7 for Septuagesima Sunday, De paucitate salvandorum), St. Thomas of Villanova (Sermon 2 for Septuagesima Sunday, Sermon 1 for the 19th Sunday after Pentecost), St. Peter Canisius (notes on the Gospel for Septuagesima Sunday), St. Robert Bellarmine (De gemitu columbae, lib. I, c. 6; De arte moriendi, lib. II, c. 3), Ven. Luis de la Puente (Meditationes, pt. 3, med. 54), St. Vincent de Paul (Sermon sur la persévérance), St. Claude de la Colombière (Migne, Orateurs sacrés, t. VII, cols. 1589–91), Bossuet (Méditations sur l’Évangile, Last Week of the Saviour, 34th day), Bl. Gennaro Maria Sarnelli (the meditation in Il mondo santificato; Opera omnia, Naples ed., 1888, vol. 2, pp. 216–217), St. Leonard of Port Maurice (Sermon 24), St. Alphonsus Liguori (Preparation for Death; Sermon for the Third Sunday of Advent, etc.), Cardinal Giraud (Homélie du petit nombre des élus), Cardinal Wiseman (Sermon 11, Sur le petit nombre des élus), and many others.

This is not including the hundreds of other holy preachers and spiritual writers who follow the same path. Therefore, it is clear that I follow the safe path in writing on this topic.

Ultimately, as Bourdaloue teaches, this is simply a question of fidelity to the gospel:

“This is a question preachers raise: whether it is fitting to explain this truth to the people and to treat it in the pulpit, since it is capable of troubling souls and casting them into discouragement? I might as well be asked whether it is good to explain the Gospel to the people and to preach it in the pulpit. Why, what in fact is more strongly marked in the Gospel than this small number of the elect? What is there that the Saviour of the world, in his divine instructions, declared to us more authentically, repeated to us more often, made us hear more formally and more clearly?…This is what the Son of God taught publicly; this is what he impressed upon his disciples. Are we better instructed than He as to what it is or is not fitting to announce to the faithful? Let us preach the Gospel, and let us preach it without cutting anything away from it or softening anything in it; let us preach it in its whole extent, in all its purity, in all its severity, in all its force. Woe to whoever shall take scandal at it; he himself, and he alone, will bear the penalty of his scandal.” (Pensées sur le salut)

Second, from the utility of the doctrine. The saints teach that this is an eminently practical and useful doctrine for salvation.

Bourdaloue lists six fruits in the hearers from preaching on this topic:

“1º to redouble his vigilance, to arm himself against dangers; 2º not to remain a single day in the state of mortal sin, but to run without delay to the remedy; 3º to separate himself from the multitude and consequently from the world, to separate himself from it, if not in fact (not all can do that), at least in mind, in heart, in maxims, in sentiments, in practices; 4º to follow the small number of Christians who are truly Christian, orderly in their conduct, faithful to all their duties; 5º to take resolutely the narrow way, since it is the only way that Jesus Christ came to teach us; to exert himself, to brace himself against obstacles; 6º finally, to beg unceasingly for the grace of heaven, to commend his soul unceasingly to God by excellent prayer.” (ibid.)

Generally, this meditation on the fewness of the saved (as noted by Gonet, Clypeus, disp. 4, digr. 2) is one of the most efficacious means for inspiring the fear of God in the hearts of the faithful, which is the beginning of Wisdom. As Stapleton notes, “This whole topic, most salutary for continual fear, is scarcely drawn from, or dependent upon, any other head more forcibly than upon this immense multitude of called Christians, but immense fewness of the elect.” (Promptuarium morale, 19th Sunday after Pentecost) It is for this reason that the greatest master of the spiritual life, St. Ignatius, sets in the beginning of the Spiritual Exercises, meant to aid the soul in the purgative way, the meditation on hell in order to inspire the fear of God. Therefore, in his Spiritual Exercises, he writes that “we ought to praise much the fear of His Divine Majesty, because not only filial fear is a thing pious and most holy, but even servile fear—when the man reaches nothing else better or more useful—helps much to get out of mortal sin.” (Rules for Thinking with the Church, n. 18) Ven. Louis of Granada, in the beginning of the Memorial of a Christian Life, proves at length that this is the proper procedure for those who are unconverted or beginning the spiritual life—to strike with terror rather than to simply promise reward—as was the practice of blessed Moses, the Prophets, Our Lord, and the Apostles.

For this principle, we do not only need to rely on the writings of theologians and the praxis of the saints; the Magisterium of the Church has itself stepped in to condemn the opposite position. Trent states that “sinners are usefully shaken by the fear of the divine justice.” (Sess. VI, cap. 6) Pius VI states the same against the Synod of Pistoia:

“[Condemned:] The fear itself of hell, which faith teaches must be imposed on sin, is not in itself good and useful as a supernatural gift, and a motion inspired by God preparing for the love of justice… [It is the teaching of the Church, that] ‘there is need,’ according to the customary order of preparation for justice, ‘that fear should first enter, through which charity will come; fear is a medicine, charity is health.’” (Auctorem fidei, n. 25)

Besides this, there are also multiple errors of Quesnel that were condemned on this point (cf. Unigenitus, prop. 60 ff.).

Therefore, a Lapide rebukes the preachers of his day for concealing this doctrine, speaking only of the mercy of God and the promises of various devotions:

“Preachers often do not teach, do not explain, do not inculcate these things, but follow the common track of explaining the Gospels, commending to sinners the passion of Christ, the mercy of God, the giving of alms, and devotion to the Blessed Virgin, that she will not let her devotees perish; nor do they come down to the vices peculiar to this or that place, so as to thunder and lighten against them and root them out: whence cities and peoples remain in the same evil laws, customs, resolutions, and vices, and reap no, or but tiny, fruit from all sermons. Let them therefore change their manner of preaching, if they would consult God, conscience, the Church, and their hearers, so as to strike consciences and uproot from them every evil seed which they know is rampant in such a place.” (In Iac. 2:13)

Preachers who ignore this truth are compared by Segneri to “physicians who would rather see a sick man dead than afflicted with grief.” (Il cristiano istruito, pt. 1, disc. 5, no. 3) This same image is used by Concina, who says that the Benignists “imitate those physicians who, in treating the gravely sick, often reason thus: an effective remedy for driving out the disease is at hand; but the sick man’s strength cannot bear the harshness and force of the remedy; therefore they apply soothing remedies, not to heal the sick, but to put off death for a few days.” (Theologia christiana dogmatico-moralis, t. I, Praefatio, § IX)

Beyond the general use, applicable to all ages, there is a particular use for our age. As Bl. Pius IX teaches, in the days of rigorism God raised up St. Alphonsus Liguori to show the middle way. What are we to do in the days of laxism, where each man believes that he is on the path to heaven and that penance is an easy thing? St. Leonard of Port Maurice answers:

“It is not curiosity, but prudence, to stir up from the height of the pulpit certain truths which serve marvellously to check the insolence of libertines, who, having never anything on their lips but the excessive mercy of God, the ease of conversion, the firmness of our hopes, live withal plunged in complete security in the very middle of the road to perdition. In order to undeceive them and to rouse them from their torpor, we are going to discuss this grave question, namely, whether the number of Christians who are saved is greater than that of the Christians who are damned.” (The Little Number of Those Who Are Saved)

Third, from the vanity of the excuse. This doctrine, properly considered, does not lead to despair when considered in the totality of Catholic theology.

The discouragement that often comes from this doctrine is either an effect of certain errors in presentation on the part of the preacher, or a certain lack of receptivity and careful consideration on the part of the hearer. As Bourdaloue teaches:

“They say: the idea of so small a number of the elect discourages and drives to despair! Yes, this idea can discourage and can even drive to despair, when it is badly conceived, badly presented, pressed too far, and above all when it is built on false principles and on erroneous opinions. But let it be conceived according to the truth, let it be presented as it really is, let it be kept within just bounds, let it be established on sound principles; then, far from casting men into discouragement, nothing is more capable of engaging us to make the utmost efforts to secure our salvation and to have a place among the blessed company of the predestined. I admit it: there are certain doctrines according to which one cannot preach the small number of the elect without ruining Christian hope. For example, to say that there will be few elect because God does not will the salvation of all men; because Jesus Christ did not offer his death for the salvation of all men; because he does not give his grace to all men…And so the Church has struck down such pernicious errors with her thunder.” (ibid.)

On the part of the hearer, the despair that arises often flows from laxity. If the preacher clearly inculcates the security of the way established by Jesus Christ and the hope we ought to have in him, diagnosing the true cause of the greatness of the reprobate (i.e., our own evil and unwillingness), then there are no secure grounds for despair, which cannot be the vital fruit of such a sermon, but only incidental to it.

As many of the saints and preachers say to illustrate this, it would not matter whether there was only one saved in ten thousand; the way is set forth, and we ought to strive to enter in at the narrow gate to be that one who is saved. Further, it would not matter if only one were damned in ten thousand; we ought to strive to enter in at the narrow gate so as not to be that one in ten thousand who is damned. There is nothing in the doctrine of the fewness of the saved that at all changes the message of the gospel or the narrow path; whether such is achieved by 1% or 99%, this does not matter. Neither is a ground for despair or presumption.

St. Thomas of Villanova is representative here, stating that “it is not said that we may despair, but that we may keep watch the more diligently. For if out of so great a multitude as we are here one man only were to be saved, and this were known, I would strive to be that one.” (Sermon 2 for Septuagesima Sunday)

Although, before continuing, there must be an admission on this point. Many defenders of the fewness of the saved have admitted the many excesses in popular preaching on this point (e.g., Bourdaloue, Verschueren, Godts). Many have used weak and uncertain arguments from various visionaries to establish the doctrine. Others (famously, Jean-Baptiste Massillon) have exaggerated the difficulty of the narrow path (demanding the heroic penance of the saints). Certain theologians engaged in vain speculations, asking whether more priests than laymen, more women than men, etc., are saved. As Estius (In I Sent., d. 40, § 201) and Alfonso de Castro (De iusta haereticorum punitione, c. 3) teach, such speculations have no place in theology, since such truths have simply not been revealed to us. The Fathers and theologians warn monks, priests, and bishops as much as laymen, stating that most of them will be damned as well. Lastly, some have given expression to completely uncertain numerical considerations that have no grounding in divine revelation and no business being presented to a public audience.

Even many canonized saints and learned men have given expression to these defects, although we should be wary of quickly condemning them for these. In some cases (e.g., a Lapide) these were presented in scientific works before a learned audience, and in other cases these were used in sermons in a moderate fashion as an illustration (although even this degree ought to be discouraged, since simple laymen often cannot distinguish between what is certain by public revelation, i.e., the relative number of the elect compared to the reprobate, and what is uncertain and illustrative by private visionaries, i.e., any sort of absolute comparison). In imitation of Our Divine Master, when preachers are asked “will those who are saved be few?” they ought primarily to reply that men should “enter in at the narrow gate” and warn them that “many will seek to enter in that day,” rather than engaging in speculation about the absolute number of the saved compared to the damned. For preachers, Bourdaloue’s advice, cited so many times before, is golden.

Ultimately, the solution of the problem of despair is the opposite virtue: Christian hope. God has promised salvation to those who follow the narrow way. God has equipped the Catholic Church with all those means morally necessary not only to free us from mortal sin, but also to acquire extraordinary, and even heroic, sanctity. Therefore, there is no reason for despair. Rather, to those who piously and perseveringly partake of the sacraments and continue in the spiritual doctrine of the Church, there is no reason to distrust that God will give the graces necessary for salvation.

The Teaching of Divine Revelation

As we have emphasized throughout this article, the chief consideration is the teaching of Divine Revelation. If we simply rely on Scripture as our primary witness, we will receive doctrinal clarity and balance, neither falling into the various excesses of certain preachers, nor falling into the novel method of the Benignists, who wage war against the entire witness of antiquity, casting aside orthodox theological methodology.

In order to establish this thesis, there are two sets of texts that must be considered. First, there are certain texts that establish this doctrine in its literal sense, whether explicitly or implicitly. Second, there are certain texts that establish this doctrine in its mystical sense, providing a type of the fewness of the saved in the Church.

Objection. As theologians generally teach, following St. Thomas, a doctrine must only be established from the literal sense of Scripture. Therefore, it is inappropriate to have the second set of texts.

Reply. I distinguish: a doctrine cannot be established from the typical sense on its own, conceded; a doctrine cannot be established from the typical sense when it is made certain from some other means (e.g., an explicit approval of the typical sense in Scripture, the consensus of the Fathers interpreting the type, etc.), denied.

In the cases of the typical sense presented here, we will be sure to only present those types that are certainly established, not those privately drawn out with little to no certainty of their sense.

As a final note, there are many other authorities that could be listed as an implicit support for each text, from the fact that they invoke and apply these texts in the midst of sermons to the faithful, warning them that many of them shall be damned. If I were to list such instances, each text would have dozens of witnesses; yet, I did not want to do this. Therefore, I am only listing the more explicit witnesses.

First Text: Matthew 7:13–14

“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.”

Certain authors (e.g., St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, St. John Cassian, Jonas of Orléans, Christian Druthmar, Ps.-Anselm, St. Bruno of Segni, Ludolph of Saxony, Stapleton, John Bosco, O.F.M., etc.) invoke this text in defense of the thesis that most Catholics are damned, taking Our Lord to speak of the faithful in particular rather than of mankind in general; others cite this text for the fact that most of mankind is damned. Texts from St. Thomas can be cited on both sides, describing it as a reference to the entire world and also as a reference to the Catholic Church. However, these references are not necessarily contradictory. For, if such a text applies to the Church, then, a fortiori, it also applies to the world as well.

A certain argument from experience supports the reading that this applies to the Church as well. Our Lord describes the way that the few find as “narrow and hard.” Now, the multitude of members in the Church are not living a life that is “narrow and hard,” but only the few. Therefore, it applies to the Church as well.

The minor premise is supported by the witness of missionaries, preachers, and masters of the spiritual life in all ages of the Church. Their witness is unanimous in this matter, complaining of the laxity and ease with which most Christians in every age live.

“If anyone considers the crowded assemblies of the Churches, and how many lead a pious and upright life and have been made new in newness of mind, and how many live slothfully and are conformed to this world, then at last he will discover the profit of this saying uttered by the Saviour: ‘For many are called, but few are chosen.’ And elsewhere it is said: ‘Many shall seek to enter, and shall not be able’; and: ‘Strive to enter by the narrow gate, for few are they that shall find it.’” (Origen, Commentary on Matthew; cf. Hom. 4 on Jeremias)

“If you examine the morals of Catholics seriously, you will see so many living negligently, without discipline and basely, that you cannot even doubt that the word of the Lord is true with regard to Catholics too.” (Laselve, Annus apostolicus, Sermon for Septuagesima)

A controversy on this particular point was settled by Verschueren in his Via arcta coeli asserta against Steyaert, who claimed that the “narrow way” was the way in which the common faithful practice religion—which he shows to be absurd on the basis of the text itself and contrary to the universal interpretation of the “narrow way” among the Fathers (who begin interpreting this text from the first century on). This is supported by many Fathers and exegetes in their description of the “narrow way” as the way of the virtues, the commandments, etc., rather than the way of faith alone, which is common to all Catholics (which some even say is the “broad way”).

Further, as Jansenius of Ypres points out (along with Concina and others), there is a good contextual argument to be made from what follows, “beware of false prophets,” etc., which Our Lord said in light of the principle just set out. For, if the gate is narrow and the way is hard, then we ought to have a skilled guide who can lead us in such an arduous way. A guide who is unskilled and preaches ease and comfort cannot lead us on the way ahead, nor even show unto us the narrow gate. Therefore, he warns us (the faithful) of these false prophets.

Other exegetes (especially among the ancients, e.g., Ven. Bede, Paschasius Radbertus, Ps.-Thomas, St. Vincent Ferrer, etc.; among many moderns, e.g., Jansenius of Ghent, Jansenius of Ypres, Calmet, Knabenbauer, etc.) point to the distinction between the “gate” and the “way.” The gate is entered by few, but the hard way is persevered in by even fewer. How could the thesis of the salvation of the majority of adult Catholics be maintained on these grounds? For, even if we were to admit (against the entire tradition) that every adult Catholic entered in at the gate, even then, few persevere unto the end of the way (why else would the way be “hard”?).

Second Text: Luke 13:23–27

“Some one said to him, ‘Lord, will those who are saved be few?’ And he said to them, ‘Strive to enter by the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. When once the householder has risen up and shut the door, you will begin to stand outside and to knock at the door, saying, “Lord, open to us.” He will answer you, “I do not know where you come from.” Then you will begin to say, “We ate and drank in your presence, and you taught in our streets.” But he will say, “I tell you, I do not know where you come from; depart from me, all you workers of iniquity!”’”

In this text, someone explicitly asks him the question at hand: “will those who are saved be few?” As St. Augustine teaches (Sermon 111), Our Lord does not deny the question, but affirms that the questioner is right by his answer—in which he is followed by many others (e.g., Bl. Denys, Cajetan, a Lapide, Gonet, etc.).

Objection. You failed to note that certain Fathers (e.g., St. Cyril) deny that Our Lord answered the man’s question about the fewness or greatness of the saved. Therefore, etc.

Response. It seems that St. Cyril is referring to the absolute number, which is conceded by those who read him as answering the question directly as well. Therefore, there is no difficulty. Further, St. Cyril obviously believes that this passage applies to Christians (while he takes the primary reference to be the contemporary Jews):

“With the above-named, you may number certain others also as able to say to the Judge of all, ‘we have eaten and drunk in Your presence, and You have taught in our streets.’ And who again are these? Many have believed in Christ, and celebrate the holy festivals in His honour; and frequenting the churches they also hear the doctrines of the Gospel: but they lay up in their mind of the truths of Scripture absolutely nothing. And it is with difficulty that the practice of virtue is brought with them even to this extent, while of spiritual fruitfulness their heart is quite bare. These too shall weep bitterly, and gnash their teeth; for the Lord shall deny them also.” (Sermon 99 on Luke)

Bl. Denys the Carthusian, Estius, John of St. Thomas, and Gonet note that this question has bearing on the faithful rather than the unbeliever, due to the fact that Our Lord speaks of those who “seek to enter” and remain in his presence to eat. This text is invoked by many authors. Bl. Denys describes those who “seek to enter”:

“They did not seek efficaciously nor desire fervently, but sluggishly and negligently, or too late, like the foolish virgins. There are therefore very many who have an unformed faith and a servile fear, who often shrink from the pains of hell, think upon their dying, dread the divine judgment, and desire eternal beatitude—but by carnal love, by worldly vanity or ambition, and by a certain womanish softness they are drawn back from the way of salvation, from the good purpose or the good beginning…” (In Luc. 13, on v. 24)

Klofutar notes (along with Maldonatus) that the occasion for such a question was the difficulty of the moral teachings preached to his followers; hence it follows that the question and the answer have in mind the fate of his followers (i.e., Christians) rather than some other group of men (e.g., the Jews) or the entire world (In Luc. 13:23).

Objection. From context, this text is clearly referring to the salvation of the Jews in the first century. Therefore, it is not applicable to the entire age of the Church.

Answer. I distinguish: this text refers to the salvation of the Jews in the first century with principles particular to their state, denied; with principles universal in scope, let it pass.

Of course, each of the texts in the New Testament was written directly and immediately touching a first-century audience. If we were to apply this exegetical principle, no text could be applied to our day about any issue. Rather, we have to ask whether the principles invoked and applied are normative and of universal value. In this text, where the grounds are the objective difficulty of finding the way for those who seek, the principles invoked and applied are normative and of universal value. Therefore, this text can be invoked, as was the practice of the Fathers, in order to teach the fewness of the Catholic saved.

This argument is made by St. Robert Bellarmine:

“What we have said of the number of the Hebrews can also be said, in due proportion, of the number of Christians. For what the Lord says in Matthew and Luke about the narrow way and gate that leads to life, by which few enter, and about the broad way and gate that leads to perdition, by which many enter, is common to Hebrews and to Christians: for the man who asked the Lord whether they are few that are saved did not say ‘are they few from among the Hebrews,’ but simply ‘are they few that are saved’; and the Lord did not answer ‘narrow is the way that leads to life, and few of the Hebrews enter by it,’ but absolutely: ‘and few enter by it.’” (De gemitu columbae, lib. I, c. 6)

Drexel also notes that Our Lord’s response is absolute and universal—“few find it”—rather than particular in any way: “what Christ foretold to the Jews is common to all the rest also: for He did not declare that only a few of the Jews would go by the narrow path to life, but pronounced it without distinction: Few find it.” (Zodiacus christianus, coronis)

The relation between the two is noted by Van Steenkiste: “although Christ adapts his maxim to the Jews of that time, we nevertheless take it as spoken generally: for one who refers a saying to certain persons in particular can at the same time enunciate a general truth.” (In Matt., nn. 267–268)

Patuzzi focuses on the end of the passage in order to establish the thesis. Those many who are damned are those who ate and drank in the presence of Jesus Christ. While there was a population of contemporary Jews who could say this, in the context in which he was speaking (i.e., to his disciples), it is more likely that he was speaking of the familiar communion that was had between disciples and master. Immediately, this refers to the familiar personal communion between them; mediately, it refers to the communion that the faithful now have with Christ, especially in the Eucharist: “Here certainly Christ is speaking not of unbelievers but of the faithful, who eat and drink the most holy body and blood of Christ and are taught by his ministers, and who nevertheless are to be excluded from the kingdom of heaven.” (Ethica christiana, t. I, tract. I, c. 12)

In this, Patuzzi follows Theophylact: “It is said to the Israelites, simply because Christ was born of them according to the flesh, and they ate and drank with Him, and heard Him preaching. But these things also apply to Christians. For we eat the body of Christ and drink His blood as often as we approach the mystic table, and He teaches in the streets of our souls, which are open to receive Him.” (In Luc. 13) This same interpretation is given by Bl. Denys: the literal eating (as St. Cyril expounds) is the eating of the sacrifices of the temple, but the spiritual eating is the eating of the sacrament by Catholics—“spiritually it is expounded of Christians, who partake of the Body and Blood of Christ unworthily, and thereby incur the greater damnation; in whose streets too, and ways, and churches Christ daily teaches through his ministers.” (In Luc. 13, on vv. 25–27)

Ven. Bede interprets this similarly, referring to those who have the “food of the word,” i.e., the knowledge of the Scriptures (In Luc. 13).

Third Text: “Many are called, few are chosen”

In both Matthew 22 and Matthew 20, there are parables that conclude with the solemn words that “many are called, few are chosen.” Therefore, this section will have a threefold division:

1. What is meant by the phrase itself?

2. What is meant by the parable in Matthew 20?

3. What is meant by the parable in Matthew 22?

The phrase itself is one of the most commonly employed statements in this entire debate and runs through the entire homiletic tradition on this subject. An entire book could be written collecting the statements on this phrase. Therefore, I will only give a handful of statements on it, leaving most of the treatment to the parables themselves.

The question at hand is: what is meant by the “called”? Is it in reference to all men (who are, in a sense, called to the Gospel), or is it in reference to those who have a particular vocation to the Gospel (i.e., those in the Church)? Some also argue that the “called” are the Jews (who have a special vocation to the Gospel) or the Gentiles (e.g., Ps.-Chrysostom).

Pope St. Gregory the Great (Hom. 19 on the Gospels), who is quoted on this passage by many authors (Vázquez, Suárez, Becanus, Gonet, etc.), states that this is in reference to those who “come to the faith” and “follow God’s words.” Ven. Bede (In Matt. 20:16), who is cited as an authority on this passage by many authors, states that this is in reference to those who “come to the faith.” Christian Druthmar (Expositio in Matthaeum) refers it to “those who have been made Christians” and to “Christians only, who have been called by preaching but who nevertheless do not follow by their works.” Ratherius of Verona (first sermon on the Ascension) states this as an obvious fact: “who are the called, if not those who have entered the Church through Baptism?” St. Albert the Great (In Matt. 20:16) refers the calling to “confessing the faith.” Tostatus (In Matt. 22) says that the calling is “to the faith” and refers to those who “are converted to it.” St. Thomas of Villanova says that it is about the “faithful” (Sermon 2 for Septuagesima). Nicholas of Lyra places it in those “called to the Catholic faith” (Postilla on Mt. 20:16). St. Francis de Sales states that this is in reference to “all those in the Church” (Controversies, pt. 1, c. 2, a. 2).

The same is referenced by St. Isidore of Seville, Paschasius Radbertus, Remigius of Auxerre, Euthymius, St. Bruno of Segni, Rupert of Deutz, the Gloss, St. Anthony of Padua, Ludolph of Saxony, Tostatus, St. Antoninus, Bl. Denys the Carthusian, Trithemius, Lanspergius, Salmerón, Stapleton, Barradius, Lucas of Bruges, Natalis Alexander, and many others.

Certain authors even apply this “call” to those living in different states of life, whether of religion, the priesthood, or the episcopacy, including St. Basil, St. John Cassian, St. Isidore of Pelusium, St. Thomas of Villanova, Ven. Luis de la Puente, and many others.

This becomes clear when we consider the parables themselves that lead to the statement that “many are called, few are chosen.”

The first parable is the less clear, which is the parable of the laborers in the vineyard. In this parable, Our Lord recounts that there were many workers in a vineyard (justice, or the Church) hired by a certain Master (Our Lord) at different hours of the day (the ages of the world, or of a man’s life). Each one, at the end of the day (the final judgment), receives the denarius (beatitude) like all the rest. Then, at the end of the day, when all are receiving the reward, certain men hired at the beginning of the day (those who lived their entire lives in justice, or those converted near the beginning of the world, i.e., the Jews) complain that they received the same reward as everyone else. At the end of the parable, the “many are called, few are chosen” is affixed.

The strange affixture of this final line has led to two responses. First, some (Jansenius of Ghent, Vázquez) taught that the denarius received by those who complained is actually hell. Second, others thought that this line is not meant to be in the text, but was added later by some scribe. Generally, Catholic theologians reject both interpretations.

St. Thomas’s interpretation is best, i.e., that this is meant to remove a false opinion (Super Matt. 20, lect. 1). For, it may seem, from this parable, that everyone who labors in the Church or in justice will receive the reward of beatitude, since each worker received his reward at the end of the day. Therefore, Our Lord added the “many are called, few are chosen” in order to dispel this false interpretation. In this way, the traditional interpretation of the principle has a strong support, indicating that many who labor in the vineyard (i.e., are in the Church, have faith, are justified) are eventually damned and do not, like the complaining laborers, receive their reward of beatitude. This explanation is quite conformable to the mind of Pope St. Gregory (Hom. 19 on the Gospels), who distinguishes between the vineyard (the Church) and those laboring (i.e., “those with right faith and good work”). Therefore, he teaches that “one who lives for himself, nourished by the pleasures of his body, is rightly reproved as idle, since he is not striving for the fruit of good works.” This is also quite conformable to the mind of St. Augustine (Sermon 87) and St. John Chrysostom (Hom. 64 on Matthew) on this passage.

The second parable is more clear. There are two stages in the parable: first, there are those who initially reject the call as the friends of the king and are eventually punished by the sword; second, there are those who come to the feast, but are without the wedding garment and are cast out of the wedding. Therefore, there are three groups of people:

1. Those who never come to the wedding.

2. Those who come to the wedding and are cast out.

3. Those who come to the wedding and remain.

In this, we can distinguish between three groups of people:

1. Those who do not listen to the Gospel at all (i.e., those without faith).

2. Those who listen to the Gospel, but do not clothe themselves with the wedding garment (i.e., those with unformed faith).

3. Those who listen to the Gospel and clothe themselves with the wedding garment (i.e., those with living faith, working by charity).

Hence, when the statement “many are called, few are chosen” is stated by Our Lord, contextually, He is speaking about the man cast out from the wedding feast (i.e., those in the Church), not about the men who were killed previously (i.e., those outside the Church). For, there is a division of two parts in the parable: the first part concerns the reprobation of the Jews and the replacement of the Jews by the Gentiles (as in Luke 14), whereas the second part concerns the final judgment. The phrase “many are called, few are chosen,” as in Matthew 20, is meant to refer to the final judgment, not to the replacement of the Jews. This division is traditional, given by St. Albert the Great, Bl. Denys the Carthusian, and Godts. That the “called” in this instance are those present at the banquet (i.e., are members of the Church) is supported by many Catholic authors, especially those writing on ecclesiology, e.g., St. Robert Bellarmine (De Ecclesia militante, c. 7), Cardinal Billot (De Ecclesia Christi, t. I, q. 7, th. 13), etc.

Objection. The opponents of the fewness of the saved in the Church often point to this exact passage, arguing that many are not damned, due to the fact that only a single man at the banquet was cast out.

To this objection, we may easily reply that parables are not to be taken in all their details. There are certain details meant to analogize and others that are not meant to do so and are just added for the sake of the story. Otherwise, we would have a 50% salvation rate from the parable of the foolish virgins and be forced to affirm only one other man in the banquet to harmonize Scripture! Therefore, the Fathers, especially St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom, clearly explain and invoke this principle constantly when interpreting parables. This is explained at length by Coppin in his La question de l’Évangile, which spends some three hundred pages against the Benignist exegesis of the Gospel question.

Already in the Patristic era, the Fathers answered this objection explicitly, including St. Augustine (Sermon 90, § 4; Sermon 95, § 6; In Ps. 61, § 6; De gestis Pelagii, III; etc.), who argues that “many are called, few are chosen” is included here specifically to indicate that there is not only one cast out, but many who suffer the same fate. As Origen, St. Jerome, Pope St. Gregory, Ven. Bede, Radbertus, Druthmar, and many others argue, the “one” is meant to be taken generically or specifically—i.e., the one man is representative of an entire group—not numerically, i.e., as if the lost were few in number. There are many other authors, among ancients and moderns alike, who answered this objection.

As Godts notes, the interpretive framework of this objection is so absurd that it would lead us also to conclude, from the first part of the parable, that every single Jew rejected the gospel and not a single one was included in the feast.

Fourth Text: The Parable of the Sower

In Luke 8, Our Lord gives the parable of the sower, where only a fourth part of the seed bears fruit unto eternal life.

As the Greek Fathers generally teach on this passage, this parable was given to the Apostles in order to relieve them from discouragement when their preaching seemed to bear fruit only among a few. Our Lord explains that it is not in the preaching or in the seed, but in the soil, that the ultimate reason for the lack of fruit lies. This is important to set out from the beginning in order to understand why this argues for fewness, i.e., because it was specifically meant to explain this phenomenon of the fewness of those who fruitfully hear the word.

Now, there are three ways in which the various types of soil could be taken:

1. The entirety of mankind.

2. All those who ever hear the gospel.

3. Only those in the Church.

As Ven. Bede explains (In Luc., lib. iii; In Marc.), this parable cannot concern the entirety of mankind, since it excludes those who do not even deserve to hear. This is clear enough from the text itself.

Yet, it seems more likely that the parable either applies to the Church or is specifically meant to indicate the Church. In the first case, it would denote the soil that the majority of mankind is like in general, which applies to those both inside and outside the Church; in the second case, it is specifically in reference to those who listen to the word, yet do not put it into practice.

In either case, this supports the conclusion. This is clear from authors like Lyra, Ludolph of Saxony, and Bl. Denys the Carthusian, who take this to be a parable concerning the Jewish people and apply the same to preachers in their own day and the fruitlessness of preaching to the multitude.

Christian Druthmar (In Matt.) interprets this of the Church, along with other authors both ancient and modern. This is the common reading of the parable, as noted by Suárez.

As Vázquez notes, citing the Gloss and Lyra, this particularly denotes those who are in the Church, since the seed is said at least to fall upon them and they are said to hear, whether they merely feign faith outwardly (the first group), or truly believe for a time (the second group), or believe, yet are fruitless (the third group). These groupings are more appropriately said of those inside the Church than of those outside the Church.

Objection. As we saw above, one cannot draw a numerical conclusion from a parable. Therefore, etc.

Response. I distinguish: if the number is simply included in the parable, conceded; if the number enters into what is analogized in the parable, denied.

In this parable, the reason of the parable is precisely the small number of those who fruitfully hear the word. Hence, it is not one of those details that are simply included, but enters into the very reason of the parable. Therefore, the objection does not follow.

This is against Knabenbauer, who attacks Victor of Antioch, Theophylact, and Bl. Denys on this point.

Fifth Text: 1 Corinthians 10:1–13

St. Paul preaches about the fewness of the saved in 1 Corinthians 10:1–13 as a corollary to his statement in 1 Cor. 9:24: “Do you not know that in a race all the runners compete, but only one receives the prize?” This context is quite important. Can the entire world be said to run in the race? Hardly. Rather, those who run are those in the Church. Yet, out of all those who run (i.e., members of the Church), only one (i.e., a few) wins the prize (i.e., is chosen). This context is explicitly stated as such by Peter of Tarentaise in his continuation of St. Thomas’s commentary on 1 Corinthians:

“In the first example, the condition of wayfarers is described; in the second, the great number of those who are called; in the third example, the small number of those chosen. Many are called but few are chosen.” (In I Cor., c. 9, lect. 5)

St. Paul points to the multitude of Israel that was baptized, ate and drank of Christ, etc., yet states that “with most of them God was not pleased; for they were overthrown in the wilderness” (v. 5) and that “these things are warnings for us” (v. 6). In the end (vv. 12–13), he mixes together the warning (“let any one who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall,” which is also applied by Pope St. Gregory) with the consolation (“No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful,” etc.), as if to say: “few are saved, therefore do not presume; yet God is faithful and will give the requisite aid, therefore do not despair.”

It is important to note that the whole section is applied to those within the Church, not those outside the Church, just as the type was those inside the Old Testament Church. This is clear from the statement that such individuals partook of what corresponds to the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist. If we follow the line of argumentation commonly brought forward by St. Paul, we see that just as the types drawn from Israel’s past typify the greater benefits, so also do they typify the greater judgment upon the faithful of the New Testament Church. Hence, it is clear that the death in the wilderness is a type of the eternal punishment of hell, just as the promised land is a type of heaven:

“The Apostle, therefore, just as in the spiritual benefits bestowed upon the people that came out of Egypt he saw prophetic figures of the far greater benefits which God was to confer upon Christians, so in the lot of that whole people, cut off in the desert for their sins, he sees a figure of far graver punishments, with which God will punish Christians if they commit like sins…it is to be noted with Thomas that, just as among goods that which is figured is far better than the figure itself (as the Kingdom of heaven than the land of promise), so among evils that which is figured is far worse than the figure that signifies it. And according to Augustine, those punishments which the Israelites underwent were a figure of hell, which is greater than every punishment.” (Rudolph Cornely, In I Cor. 10)

This allegorical interpretation of the death of the Israelites in the wilderness as pertaining to the fewness of the saved among the faithful is one of the most common among the Fathers, ascetical authors, preachers, exegetes, and theologians applied to this problem. Nearly every sermon on the fewness of the saved uses this figure drawn from St. Paul.

Objection 1. As St. Thomas and the theologians commonly teach, the mystical sense of a passage cannot be used to establish a theological argument. Therefore, etc.

Response. While this was already treated above, it is important to apply the same response to this passage in particular. Here, we are not arguing from the type nakedly taken, but from the type as it is explicitly established by the literal sense of Scripture (in 1 Cor. 10) and interpreted as such by the authority of the Fathers, theologians, preachers, etc. Therefore, such a use is authoritative, and not merely confirmatory, as other uses of types will be.

The connection between this text and the “many are called, few are chosen” is made by a number of authors, including St. John Cassian, Ps.-Ambrose, Ven. Bede, Rabanus Maurus, Herveus of Bourg-Dieu, Nicholas of Gorran, etc. As St. Isidore writes, “this figure shows that many pass over to the faith through baptism, but that very few reach the heavenly fatherland, according to that figure in the Gospel in which many are called but few are found chosen.” (Quaestiones in Vetus Testamentum, In Num., c. 42, §§ 9–10)

It is for this reason that many theologians of solid authority use this in order to establish the proof (e.g., Bartholomew de Medina, Dominicus Gravina, Recupito, Frassen, Viator of Cocaleo, Godts, etc.).

Objection 2. It is clear that not all who died in the desert (e.g., Moses) were damned. Therefore, etc.

Response. The typological argument does not rely on a complete likeness between type and antitype. In many types, the antitype is only analogously like the type, so that only the general principle—that the vast majority are damned—is drawn.

Sixth Text: Philippians 2:21

In Philippians 2:21, St. Paul writes: “They all look after their own interests, not those of Jesus Christ.” Now, this indicates that the vast majority, even of the coworkers of St. Paul, have grave faults even in their ministry; therefore, a fortiori, the vast majority of simple laymen in their day-to-day lives.

If even those in ministry seek their own interests, how much more the laity? If even in the very act of ministering they seek their own interests, how much more outside of this act? Therefore, the conclusion follows.

This is used by many theologians, including Estius, Drexel, Recupito, Verschueren, Concina, etc. This is also employed by the Fathers, including St. Gregory the Great in a number of places.

It is on this basis that we can also put forward the further thesis that there is a fewness of prelates who are saved as well, as employed by St. Bernard, Bl. Denys, St. Robert Bellarmine, and others. Yet, such an interpretation is less clear, since, as Godts points out, many authors applied this to all the faithful. Still, from the tenor of the text, it seems that the Apostle intended this of clerics rather than of all the faithful.

Objection. St. Paul says “all.” Now, it would obviously be absurd to say that they were all damned. Therefore, it must be speaking of some lesser, venial fault.

Response. Estius responds that “all” is taken for “nearly all,” as it is taken in other places in Scripture (e.g., in multiple places in Romans 3): “The Apostle also, speaking of the faithful, says: All seek the things that are their own—that is, very nearly all.” (In I Sent., d. 40–41, § 203) Hence, St. Bernard, when quoting the verse, describes it as omnes fere (Serm. 6 in Ps. XC “Qui habitat,” n. 7). That this is a common expression in the Scriptures is pointed out by St. Jerome (In Eph., c. 1), St. Augustine (De unitate Ecclesiae, c. 12), St. Thomas (Super Phil., c. 2, lect. 4), a Lapide, and others.

As to whether such a fault was venial or not, it cannot be established with the clarity of the aforementioned proofs. For, St. Albert (In Apoc. 8:12), Cajetan (In Phil. 2:21), and others apply this text both to the reprobate and to the imperfect, while certain others leave the matter undetermined. Yet, from the more common interpretation of the Fathers, theologians, and spiritual authors, it is more probable that this refers to mortal fault—or, at least, if it applies to venial fault as well, then the majority can be established from this tradition to have mortal fault.

Seventh Text: Canticle of Canticles 2:2

In the Canticle of Canticles 2:2, Our Lord says that “as a lily among brambles, so is my love among the daughters.” Now, from the common interpretation of this book, this ought to be interpreted in reference to mysteries concerning the Church. Therefore, this passage indicates that among the many in the Church (i.e., the daughters), the beloved of Christ (i.e., the elect) are quite rare, speaking of a choice few among many.

That the “daughters” are in reference to members of the Church, St. Augustine says: “He did not say, in the midst of strangers; but, in the midst of the daughters.” (De fide rerum quae non videntur, c. 8, n. 11) This point is brought up by St. Augustine on a number of occasions (e.g., In Ps. 47, nn. 8–10; In Ps. 99, n. 8 ff.; etc.) and applied to the question of the fewness of the saved in the Church, which he proves from their being called thorns: “whence does he call them thorns, if not because of the malignity of their morals? And the same, whence daughters, if not because of the communion of the Sacraments?” (De unitate Ecclesiae, c. 14, n. 35; cf. Ep. 93 ad Vincentium, c. 9, nn. 28–30) These are “daughters by the communion of the faith, as thorns by the bitterness of their morals!” (Vitis mystica, c. 67)

Hence, among theologians, Álvarez uses this proof: “As the lily among thorns, so is my love among the daughters. He does not say among strangers, as Bernard noted, but among the daughters, that is, among the household of the faith: for as thorns exceed lilies in number, so also among the faithful the reprobate exceed the elect.” (De auxiliis, lib. V, disp. 43) (The remark he ascribes to St. Bernard is in fact St. Augustine’s, as Bañez rightly cites it.) The same note is commonly made by other theologians (e.g., Paolacci, Recupito, Gonet, etc.). It is to be noted, with them, that the particular comparison made by the author is between the fewness of the lily (which is said to be singular) and the multiplicity of the thorns (which are many). As Bañez points out, this same analogy is repeated again in the next verse, clearly comparing the few to the many: “As the apple tree among the trees of the woods, so is my beloved among the sons.” (v. 3; In II-II, Douai ed., p. 86)

Objection. This text is also applied by others (e.g., Origen, St. Ambrose, St. Fulgentius, Bruno of Segni, etc.) in reference to heretics and their relationship with the Church, or to the nations in comparison with the Church (e.g., Bl. Denys, Nicholas of Lyra, etc.). Famously, it is also applied to the Blessed Virgin by many authors.

Response. There are still many authors who use this in reference to the fewness of the saved (e.g., St. Augustine, Ven. Bede, Angelomus of Luxeuil, Haymo, Robert of Tombelaine, the Gloss, Hugh of St. Cher, etc.).

The reason for this is that a multiplicity of interpretations does not destroy the validity of one of the literal senses. This is due to the fact that there are a number of different literal senses, that the spiritual senses are often mixed into expositions, and that authors often accommodate passages.

Eighth Text: Ecclesiastes 1:15

In Ecclesiastes 1:15, it is said that “the number of fools is infinite.” Now, among the Hebrews, “foolishness” is not said in regard to a lack of intellectual subtlety, but a grave lack of moral rectitude (as noted by Bl. Denys and a Lapide). For, foolishness is the lack of wisdom, which, among the Hebrews, is often identified with either sanctifying grace or one of its chief effects (the gift of wisdom). Therefore, etc.

It is to be admitted that the “fools” are not restricted to the members of the Church. Yet, this text is often used by exegetes and theologians in support of this thesis. The reason for this is that these authors applied what is generally applicable to the entirety of mankind to what is also common among the members of the Church. Therefore, this argument does not follow so much from what is formally stated in the text as from what can be drawn from the text. It is to be noted that this text, and the argument drawn from it, can be applied to a number of different texts commonly employed in this way (e.g., the sequence of Romans 3).

Further, as indicated by the beginning of this verse (which is drawn out by Hugh of St. Victor), this is specifically about those whom the author attempts to correct. This principle—that correction more commonly falls on deaf ears due to foolishness—supports the application to the Church, who attempts to correct her children and more often fails. This is clear (as a Lapide points out) from the fact that, among the Hebrews, “and” often has a causal rather than a conjunctive sense, as if to say that “the perverse are hard to be corrected” because “the number of fools is infinite”—which would more principally apply to those inside the Church (who receive correction like that which Solomon attempted) than to those outside the Church (who receive correction to a lesser degree and far more imperfectly). As St. Albert writes, “I so admonish to penance, but I hear the excuse of the many who are unwilling to be converted.” (In Ps. 4:6) A Lapide writes (in the voice of the author):

“By all my preaching, every law and command, all my labour and effort, I make little progress and with few people; because the far greater part of men, ensnared by the painted and deceitful appearance of vanity and of vain riches, pleasures and honours, perversely and obstinately gape after them, and therefore refuse to be corrected; therefore the number of fools who devote themselves to the vain and foolish enticements of the world is innumerable.” (In Eccl. 1:15)

This text is generally employed by theologians in its received reading for its conclusion (e.g., St. Albert in many places, St. Thomas, Bl. Denys, a Lapide, Concina, etc.).

Objection. The Hebrew text does not read “the number of fools is infinite,” but “what is lacking cannot be numbered.” Therefore, etc.

Response. It is to be remembered that the Latin Vulgate is authentic and does not substantially state something contrary to faith or morals. Therefore, arguments can be drawn even from the disputed readings of the Vulgate, especially when these become common in the tradition. For more, cf. the treatments of the authority of the Vulgate among the scholastics.

Yet, it is also to be noted, even upon the original reading, that this text is applied to the same conclusion by certain authors (e.g., Origen, Alcuin, Estius). For, the particular defect (i.e., the “lack”) is a defect of some character of correctability, which would apply most principally to foolishness. Therefore, other authors defend this reading as equivalent to the original (e.g., Cajetan, a Lapide, Dominicus Gravina, the Migne editors, etc.). A Lapide notes that the same is followed by the Syriac version.

Ninth Text: 1 Peter 4:18

St. Peter writes in 1 Pet. 4:18, quoting the LXX version of Prov. 11:31: “If the righteous man is scarcely saved, where will the impious and sinner appear?” Now, the just make up a portion of the Church. Therefore, a fortiori, the minority of the Church will be saved.

Ps.-Oecumenius (In I Petr. 4:18, as reported also by a Lapide) states that the distinction between “impious” and “sinner” is that the impious in no way cleave to God, whereas the sinner in some way cleaves to God, yet transgresses his law. While this is a disputed exegetical point, it reveals the mind of certain Greeks on this point. Bl. Denys also follows this reading.

Objection. The majority of authors appeal to the difficulty of the path of the just, rather than the infrequency with which the just are saved. Therefore, etc.

Response. It is to be replied that infrequency follows upon difficulty. Therefore, it is no objection to the text. It is in this applied sense that the authors who invoke this text ought to be taken. Further, even if we were to concede that the sense of the Apostle is to indicate those just at the end of their life, even then would this still support our conclusion. For, speaking to the Church, it is implied that such concerns a small portion of them, as is evident from the tenor of the Epistle.

Other authors take the “just” to mean “those who appear just to men”—so Hugh of St. Cher, following the exposition he cites from Augustine (In I Petr. 4:18)—which would lead to the same conclusion. Further, others (e.g., Bl. Denys) note that even the presently just arrive at salvation only with difficulty, since it is difficult to persevere unto the end—which would indicate the same sense, i.e., that even those in a state of justice with difficulty remain in that state and often fall from it.

Or, according to some authors, this is meant to indicate the severe temporal afflictions of the just, which will be an image of the future afflictions of the unjust (e.g., St. Ambrose, Estius); although the majority take it in other senses that lead to our conclusion. It is to be noted, for this reason, that this text is not frequently cited for our conclusion; yet it follows clearly enough from the principles of the majority of interpreters.

Tenth Text: The Net and the Threshing Floor

There are various different types from the New Testament that show the fewness of the just in the Church, especially the net and the threshing floor, which are applied against the Donatists, Protestants, and other groups. From the net, the majority of fish are thrown back; from the threshing floor, the majority is chaff, which is burned. Therefore, etc.

This is most frequently employed by St. Augustine against the Donatists: “these same good and true Christians, who considered in themselves are many, in comparison with the wicked and the false are likewise few. So the many grains with which great barns are filled we call few in comparison with the chaff.” (Contra Cresconium, III, 66) “Why do we rejoice at multitudes? Hear me, you few. I know that many of you hear, and few obey. I see the threshing-floor; the grains I look for…Few, then, are they that are saved, in comparison with the many that shall perish.” (Sermon 111 [al. 32 De verbis Domini]) He says as much as to number in a variety of texts (e.g., Contra Cresconium, III, 66, n. 75; IV, 53, n. 63; Contra Faustum, XIII, 16; De catechizandis rudibus, 19, 31; etc.). The same is followed by many authors, including Pope St. Gregory, who pairs the ark and the threshing floor in the same homily (Hom. 38 on the Gospels, n. 8), and Ven. Bede, who joins the figure to the “many are called, few are chosen” (In Luc. 3).

As the Gloss notes, there are three groups: the wheat, the chaff, and the tares. The wheat concerns those Catholics who have faith and charity; the chaff, those Catholics who have faith, but not charity; and the tares, those who are severed from the Church: “The chaff arises from the same origin as the wheat, that is, from the seed; but the tares from a different one. The chaff, therefore, are those who are steeped in the sacraments of faith but are not solid; the tares are those who are severed from the elect both by works and by profession.” (Glossa ordinaria, in Matt. 3:12) The same is followed by many authors, including St. Thomas, St. Bernardine of Siena, Bl. Denys, Vázquez, Estius, Suárez, Bellarmine, a Lapide, and even the Roman Catechism. The floor is the Church, which will be separated into the elect and reprobate at the judgment.

Objection. Nowhere in the text does it state that the number of chaff is greater than the wheat, nor the number of bad fish greater than the good fish, etc.

Response. First, it is proven from the authority of many of the authors above (especially St. Augustine) that the relative number enters into the sense of the parable. Second, the common people would have understood this from the tenor of the parables, which were meant to indicate that the last judgment, like these activities, is meant to separate the few from the many. While this is less certain, it still stands as highly probable.

Eleventh Text: The Little Flock

In Luke 12, Christ refers to the Church as the “little flock.” Now, it appears from history and other texts, along with the note of catholicity promised to the Church, that the Church itself is not a “little flock,” but the mustard seed that will grow quite large and the stone which will encompass the whole world, etc. Therefore, the “little flock” is the elect within the Church, who are outnumbered by the reprobate.

Objection. Christ simply intended to refer to the Church then existing as the “little flock,” not to the Church throughout the ages.

Reply. Contrary to this is the general use of the term by the Fathers and other authoritative authors. For, Ven. Bede (In Luc. 12:32) describes this as the “little flock of the elect” compared to the number of the reprobate. This text from Ven. Bede is used by the liturgy of the Church (Matins, Common of a Confessor not a Pontiff). This text is employed by many authors in this same sense.

Objection. The “little flock” is said in comparison to the world, not in comparison to the entirety of the Church. Therefore, a Lapide says that the Church “is no longer a little flock” (In Luc. 12:32).

Reply. These are morally equivalent; for, if the Church is quite large and the majority of the Church are elect, how could it then be called a “little flock”?

To the argument that the Church is “no longer a little flock”: the Fathers and most other authors frequently apply this term perpetually to the elect within the Church, and not merely to the nascent Church. Therefore, whether this is the literal sense of the text or rests on the authority of its accommodators, it can still be employed as an argument. This application appears in other places in the works of a Lapide himself (e.g., In Isa. 1; In Amos 9:6; etc.). Therefore, Bossuet was able to say, “the little flock is everywhere, and everywhere it forms part of the great Church.” (Seconde instruction pastorale)

Objection. Certain authors take this to be in reference to humility, not number—this is even the member that Ven. Bede himself prefers, and Billuart after him.

Reply. The two readings do not exclude one another. The humility-reading commonly occurs only in conjunction with the number-reading (e.g., Ven. Bede, Bl. Denys, Suárez, etc.); Bl. Denys expressly combines them, the flock being little by humility, by low repute, and by fewness compared with the reprobate (In Luc. 12); as Berti puts it, “in the Gospel they are called a little flock, not only because of their lowliness, but also because of the greater number of the reprobate.” (De theologicis disciplinis, lib. VI, c. 17) Other authors (e.g., St. Gregory Nazianzen) also accommodate this text to the great number of heretics, but such is an accommodated sense rather than the literal reading.

Twelfth Text: The Prophets

This is proven from a series of different texts from the Prophets, who describe the number of the faithful found in Israel (prophetically, also the Church) as very few or none. The most cited text is from Isaiah 24, which looks forward to the future judgment (both of Israel and of the world), stating that the final judgment will be “as at the gleaning when the vintage is done” (v. 13), so that “few men are left” (v. 6)—which implies the fewness of those saved within Israel (prophetically, the Church). For, the gleaning is done from the olive tree that is beaten, which is a symbol of Israel and the Church. Similarly, other texts: Isa. 17:5–6; 1:9; 4:3; 6:13; 9:3; 10:22; 13:12; 30:17; 63:3; 65:8; Jer. 3:14; 5:1; Ezek. 9:4–6; 22:30; Amos 3:12; 5:3; Mic. 7:1–2; etc.

Objection. Many take these in reference to the coming of Antichrist, when few of the elect will remain in the Church. Therefore, it is inappropriate to apply this to the entire era of the Church.

Response. It is conceded that most authors take it in this sense, yet it is denied that our conclusion is inappropriate in light of this fact. For, the prophetic image is taken for multiple realities in the mind of the prophet—whether of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, or of the time of Antichrist, or of the time of the final judgment, when few will be found elect within the entire Church. Therefore, this text is commonly employed by many authors who explain this sense (e.g., Bl. Denys, St. Robert Bellarmine, a Lapide, etc.). Further, many authors use general principles of the smallness of the elect in the Church in order to explain this passage, so that it is implied that they hold such to be the case both at the final judgment and at all times.

The other texts can be read prophetically in this light. The remnant of Israel foreshadows the remnant of the faithful within the Church (Ps.-Basil). Isaiah’s comment that “thou hast multiplied the nation, and hast not increased the joy” (Isa. 9:3) is taken by Stapleton to witness to the same fact—i.e., while the other nations will come in during the time of the Church, it will still be the case that only a remnant of the people of God will be saved:

“The prophet Isaias said, in chapter 9: Thou hast multiplied the nation, and hast not increased the joy, since amid the multitude of nations which throughout the whole world confess Christ with the mouth, so few there are who believe with the heart and show forth their faith by good works.” (Promptuarium morale, 19th Sunday after Pentecost)

It is to be noted that these texts (outside of Isa. 17 and 24) are only quoted occasionally by authors. Therefore, they should be used sparingly, as the typical sense of a prophecy is more difficult to establish than that of a clear and direct statement, as we saw with the texts above.

Thirteenth Text: Minor Texts

There are other minor texts used by authors—e.g., the saints are often said to be “called by lot,” and therefore it is implied that they are few. However, the authority of these texts for establishing the thesis is wholly taken from their application to the problem at hand by certain authors favorable to our thesis, since these texts do not appear clearly enough, or even probably, to be comparing the elect in the Church to the reprobate outside the Church.

NOTE: I have not completed the remainder of this study. There are various different types given by Catholic authors, along with various different theological arguments given. Below, I will be giving these in outline without my usual detail given above. Further, I would like to double check each of my citations and read a handful of other works on the matter that I did not check.