Our Lady is the surest way to heaven... "What Lucifer has lost by pride, Mary has gained by humility. What Eve has damned and lost by disobedience, Mary has saved by obedience. Eve, in obeying the serpent, has destroyed all her children together with herself, and has delivered them to him; Mary, being perfectly faithful to God, has saved all her children and servants together with herself, and has consecrated them to His Majesty." St. Louis De Montfort, True Devotion to Mary, pg. 41
How is it the truth? The more intellectual gymnastics you do to assent to a moral absurdity INCREASES not LESSENS your spiritual callousness and hatred of others. Eternal conscious torment is an absolutely disgusting, false, and contradictory idea (assuming you hold Sacred Scripture to be infallible & adhere to the claims classically made about the nature of God in the Christian tradition).
I will pray for all of you. Please also pray for me. "Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. Draw near to God and he will draw near to you."
@@tookie36Luke 13:23-24 And some one said to him, “Lord, will those who are saved be few?” And he said to them, 24 “Strive to enter by the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able.
@@tookie36 The Church Fathers, Doctors of the Church, and Scholastic theologians unanimously exegete this verse as meaning the fewness of the saved. As a Catholic? You can’t deny this.
@@dwong9289 there is no such catholic teaching on who or how many will go to hell. Dare we hope all men shall be saved is in line with church teaching. As well as church fathers since the beginning who would never claim “most people go to hell”
This Video is brutal but just because it is brutal doesn’t mean it’s not true. Jesus was not some kind of 1970s Hippie that always talked about Peace, Love and Harmony but he is God that calls us to believe in him, repent and do his Will. Catholics need to understand that some aspects of our Faith are uncomfortable. Edit: If you worry about the Salvation of the Souls of other People then pray for them, it’s 100% more effective then falling into despair.
In my experience, these claims often only push non-Catholic Christians further away from Catholicism, because it gives the impression of a divine plan that is less loving and far more brutal than whatever the non-Catholic already believes.
@@SampleText-sb4kh God bless and keep you. I'm not at a place where the solas seem very likely to me, but videos such as these push me in that direction. I will keep searching
@@SampleText-sb4kh Not to be that guy, but if this video somehow affirmed your faith in the deformation of the protestant movement then you need to seriously reconsider your beliefs and humble yourself. This teaching aside from the consensus of the fathers is explicitly within scripture. I used to be a Protestant as well, hope you find truth and paradise and come to the true faith.
@@hap1678 I thank you. I was born Catholic without believing, and have come to affirm the reformed position. I've seen a lot of Trent Horn debates, and I can see how Catholics and Orthodox have a very valid claim to legitimacy IF many of the debatable points do fall in their favor. But I still cannot reconcile the most controversial points of Catholic doctrine with my personal experience with God. As I said, pray you're correct and I incorrect. Pray that I get into the right camp before death. I'll do the same for all who believe in Christ.
I honestly have little interest in being yet another soul in the sea of people complaining about the harshness of this, shall we say, doctrine. Far be it from me to go around saying "It's fine, this is not dogma so you don't have to believe in it," "Actually, [insert heretical universalist nonsense here]," etc. But I certainly have to point out how poisonous this concept can be to the average person's mentality. One way or another, it leads either to despair or to an implicit resignation with regards to the eternal fate of your fellow man: A person with non-Christian friends, whose evangelization efforts turned out unfruitful, is forced to either tearfully hand over the matter to God (In which case, you have little reason to believe they're anything other than damned. No reason to believe your loved ones are any different from the rest of the damned multitudes) or to simply be at peace with the fact that they'll very likely be forever lost. There's something almost monstrous about this peace. To be at complete ease with the fact that every friend you make, every face you see on the streets or on TV or in the Internet, is almost definitely and certainly damned. There certainly are those who know this and in response will just seek to shunt themselves off from the world, in the sheer bitterness that they harbor for it, and yet this will be just a defocusing done to make the pill easier to ignore. Once you deindividuate the multitudes and see them as simply "Fools on their way to perdition," it becomes far easier to accept their eternal loss. In the face of this, the prayerful hope for others becomes a bit of a joke. A sort of coping mechanism, at best. As if there is a small moving spotlight marking off the elect from the damned, and you (And I use "you" as a general term here, not with any specific referent) just hope that it will happen to fall on the people you care for. Few are rigorists when it comes to their non-Catholic grandma who recently passed away (And yet, we must love the law of God just as we love God himself. So why mourn over those who are likely damned? It's their just desserts, after all, no matter who they were for us). The advice to trust in divine mercy ultimately rings hollow; it will do little to comfort those who suffer for all people, and not simply for their own personal salvation. In either case: Keep me in your prayers, brother. I am afraid I might be hanging by a thread.
I implore you to live in forgetfulness of the eternal destination of the souls of others. Remember, judge not, lest ye be judged; one of the ways in which we invite judgement on ourselves is by despairing over the fate of others as to believe that there is scarcely any hope for them to come to faith and persevere. Yes, the multitude will be damned, but as much as you are unaware of who is numbered amongst the few, so are you unaware as to who will stand amongst the damned. God did not reserve that knowledge for us; and so, in the spirit of charity, try to keep a hopeful outlook of everyone you meet. It's safer that way.
I fully agree with you. I think massa damnata is spiritual poison and those who advocate it have often 'depersonalized' non-Catholic 'masses', often claiming empathy but lacking it in reality. I don't think I could ever find it in myself to fully believe and accept and internalize massa damnata, I don't know how I could possibly reconcile it with the love of God or universal will for salvation, all the solutions I hear just sound hand wavey and superficial to me. I want to become Catholic (as an inquirer) but videos like this make it hard.
We must discern that there are three strains of the fewness of the saved. The first strain, which is supported by the Consensus of the Fathers, is the notion that the majority of those who die are damned. The second strain is that the majority of those who are Christian will not be saved, which is supported by many Doctors of the Church, particularly those who dealt with Heresies, particularly Protestantism. The third strain is that most Catholics will not be saved, which is a minority Theological position. The first position and second positions are reasonable in regards to Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium, to which the quotes from the Fathers and the Magisterium can be easily understood in light of. The third position is spiritual poison: Our God is a God of hope, and the notion that a majority of those who are Catholic, in a proper sense, are not saved, leads to spiritual despair. It, by its logical spiritual conclusion, is absurd, and should thus be rejected.
I have serious concerns with this. Namely, its implications for divine hiddenness. The truth of Catholicism is not obvious to much of the non-Catholic world, if you think it is so obvious that there's no debate, you are in a bubble and have not engaged with the highest level scholarship the other sides have to offer. If God wished, God could inscribe a message confirming Catholicism onto the moon and all parts of the world would likely become members. If simply being a faithful member of the Catholic Church rather than being a faithful member of another Christian denomination vastly increased odds of salvation, then how would the fact that we have such divine hiddenness about Catholicism around the world mesh with God's universal will for salvation?
Being Catholic doesn’t in any way guarantee you a ticket to heaven. Most Catholics are Catholic in name only. Many of them die in unrepentant sin. It’s not unreasonable at all to say that most Catholics are going to hell.
“My yoke is easy and my burden is light.” Salvation is eminently possible for all. The number of the saved is not useful to dwell on because it 1. Makes you turn inward, hyper-concerned about your own situation 2. Makes you approach the sacrament of penance in an OCD autistic way that is not consonant with the historic practice of penance. 3. Makes you think it is your job to read moral theology manuals and hold yourself to the most rigorous opinions in them, even though you don’t have the prerequisite learning in philosophy to understand the genre of these statements 4. Inclines you to attempt to be your own spiritual director. Believe me, if you brought this stuff up to a good spiritual director they would tell you to trust in God and cut it out 5. Makes you distrustful of your confessor as too lax. 6. Makes you distrustful of God who is laying snares to damn even the majority of his church 7. Makes you susceptible to pride and spiritual pride if you determine you’ve checked all the boxes to get into heaven 8. Makes you distrustful to saints who spoke of God’s mercy 9. Makes you think it’s your crusade to make the church promote this point of view 10. Sidetrack your spiritual growth (actually endangering yourself) God shows that he loves you in these cases with tough love: he withdraws his grace so that you fall into repeated mortal sin, so that you learn the only thing possible is to trust in his grace, and so that you learn that he loves you and everyone else. We have no idea what God will choose to do. He does not reveal the statistics for a good reason: it inclines us to presumption or despair-usually the second-which are mortal sins against Hope. It is not easy to see how damnation is consonant with God’s love. It is real, but if you are focusing on damnation more than on salvation, your spiritual life is stunted.
I see what you are saying but this video is more in response to universalists and hopeful universalists. Personally, I don't think we can know the number of the saved. But we know they are few.
@@digidox7900I came from extremely zealous to agnostic. What you make of me then? And the idea of belief is also quite complicated. The etymology of belief has to do with a feeling of love. I simply can't feel love. And many can't do that. Most are emotionally shut. And to Repent is a change of heart. How can you have a change of heart if you can't feel. And how can you even make yourself to feel in the first place? What if you can't trust? Love requires trust. What if you can't trust due to past betrayal and your heart simply doesn't open up? Judging by what it says that God chooses from the beggining of time. It looks as if your repentance means nothing and you can neither change your heart or have that feeling. It becames an absurd doctrine and either there are missing pieces or this reality is that contradictory. And all this seems like a double bind scenario damned if you do and damned if you don't...
@@dwong9289 How can you choose if you can't trust? How can you form a relation or have first contact in the dark forrest, free for all, nietachean will to power, scenarios? How is the 0 even possible and what stops the infinite non ordered set of tav to take over into the domains of imaginary numbers and keeping with the illusions of suffering? Why would total annihilation not be the natural outcome as it happens for some animals and lower human nature to lead to absolute despair and insanity as well as multi exhaustion on all levels? If it was easier than this perhaps there would have been more to trust. But that is not the case.
If you strive towards the divine with all of your heart and the entirety of your being to conform yourself will to God then this teaching should not worry you, but your worries should be for others.
Whenever St. Alphonsus spoke about hell and condemnation, he always tried to console his listeners by also talking about mercy and heaven. If you are going to talk about the fewness of the saved, you also have to talk about God's mercy so as to avoid despair.
Dwong I am in great need of help. My (earthly) mother is a Christian, but she ONLY believes in the 4 gospels. So all of the Old Testament and the rest of the New Testament is not something that she believes. I just find it very troubling and I said to her: “ Without the prophecies of the Old Testament, the people would not be able to see him as the Messiah.” Please help me. God bless 🙏
Love the message man, I am very solid in spirituality and scrupulosity and your videos help. One request that would really help that though is you maybe refuting sedevacantism please… they’re the only ones that get me hung up nowadays. Love ya brother ✝️
All who are dames are damed on acount of there own sin, Gods yolk is essy and his mother holds us we need only to thrust ourselves into his arms as frail as we are by the sacrements and he will carry us acrose dwep waters
Let us pray for the souls of all Catholics who have fallen away from the faith, who are lukewarm, who are suffering from sloth, and who are in state of mortal sin
This teaching, to me, definitively would place the Gospel amongst the most dreadful pieces of news ever told. I cannot bring myself to believe it, and that makes me very sad because I really feel drawn to Catholicism but every single figure of my conscience screams against this. Perhaps Orthodoxy is true (although they seem weak in the Filioque). I really don't know, I'm just sad. Whatever argument you put against other Christian denominations, i find it outweighed by the untenability of massa damnata. Maybe I'll meet with some priests and pray that dwong is wrong and that this isn't dogma. Let it be known that at this moment, this video is the biggest obstacle between me and Catholicism.
@@vaskaventi6840 mass damnata is plainly revealed in Scripture (and that’s how it’s exegeted by the Doctors of the Church, Saints, Scholastics, etc.) It’s a hard teaching, but we don’t get to just make up which truths we believe in, we are not God. We are supposed to accept His revelation, not make up His revelation.
@@countryboyred yet dwong's whole argument depends not on a total consensus of all the fathers but rather a particular papal statement on the infallibility of the consensus of the scholastics. This is because once you move outside the scholastics, you end up finding more pushback. Whenever eastern fathers are cited against Dwong, he simply appeals to the mere scholastic consensus as his Trump card. Even if massa damnata is POPULAR amongst Orthodox, there is clearly rejection of it amongst some Fathers, even more so in the East, there is no narrow scholastic infallibility of one particular era to appeal to there
Humility is a virtue found in all saints. And I believe it is necessary to obtain heaven. In our culture, we have a distorted understanding of it - when we say we are humbled by something - that is not humility. I fall into the pit of pride daily, and I know I do it, but do it almost reflexively. Also, in a catholic men’s group i meet with weekly, I mentioned many saints believed they were wretched, undeserving sinners, and felt they were destined for hell - they did not like that comment. Presumption is also something we need to battle daily. Prayers for all - know the road is narrow.
This is one of those hard teachings, one that can convict you or destroy you. Thank you for reminding me of this. I have to meditate and pray on this and more thoroughly, with the help of God's grace, amend my life more perfectly
While these views and teachings from the Early Church Fathers should be taken with gravity, it should also be understood that they are not made definitive by the Magisterium. Ultimately, there is only One who knows how many He will save.
The teachings of the church fathers and the scholastics are themselves approved and propagated by the magisterium. Further, to avoid holding a view because you are not absolutely required to hold it shows a lack of docility
@@marvalice3455 If there was an error in what I said, please point it out. CCC 1037 is explicit when it says "God predestines no one to go to hell;" and this is a definitive teaching from the Magisterium. To say that "we should act with salvific zeal as though most people go to hell" is manifestly different from saying that "most people go to hell". One statement is pedagogical, the other is ontological. There is also a difference between views (opinions) and teachings of Early Church Fathers. It will do us good not to conflate them.
@@ZxymrCCC 1037 is about rejecting positive antecedent reprobation, reprobation is a Catholic dogma, just read Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. All of the Scholastic theologians taught the fewness of the saved, and this must be held on to because the Unanimous Consensus of the Scholastic Theologians cannot err
@@dwong9289 If you have sources that demonstrate that reprobation is Catholic dogma, I would love to see them. While I respect the content of Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, it is not a source of dogma nor is it intended to be. Even if we assume it were dogma, it has no bearing on my original argument that '"most people go to hell" is to be taken as dogma', since "it is possible for a person to go to hell" does not mean "most people go to hell". You justified the salvation of the few by saying "the Unanimous Consensus of the Scholastic Theologians cannot err". By itself, this statement is false, because they only do not err if they are aligned with magisterial teachings. However, I do agree that salvation of the few is doctrinal. But, "salvation of the few" does not necessarily imply that "most people go to hell".
@@Zxymr you should “The Consensus of the Fathers and Theologians” by Fr. Ripperger, it clearly demonstrates that the consensus of the Scholastic Theologians cannot err since they have been given approbation by the Popes. This is why Pope Pius IX in Tuas Libenter says: “For, even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as **divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and constant consent are held by Catholic Theologians to belong to faith.”** Not “theologian” here refers to Scholastic theologians, not contemporary theologians.
I personally think most people end up in purgatory but stay there for quite a while rather then hell there are though many who do end up in hell only a few get straight to heaven.
The fewness of the saved for all mankind is the consensus of the Church Fathers and scholastics exegeting Scripture, so you must hold it. The fewness of the saved as applied to Christians is not defined though and you can reject that.
I think it was pope pius the 9th said, we can't have reasonable hope for people who die outside the Church, but we can have some hope. I got that off Fr ripperger.
I would be interested to see the level of cope when you compare the version of Roman Catholicism presented here to Nostra Aetate. Literally 2 different religions.
@@ReveloChrist I view this quote as a conditional promise that if you should pray the rosary everyday and stay in God’s love you will not be one, but you cannot just stop out of nowhere, also there’s a difference in just saying the words and not having your actions conforming to the mediative prayer
This video should be immediately taken down. The "narrow" gates mentioned in both Luke 13:23-30 and Matthew 7:13-14 do not imply that many will be lost. NT Wright's interpretation suggests that these passages refer to the judgment in 70 AD, emphasizing the urgency of making the right choices in a specific historical context rather than an eternal finality. This focus on immediate judgment shifts the implication from eternal loss to a call for repentance and right action in the face of impending disaster. Jesus responds to those preoccupied with who will be saved-often the "sons of the kingdom" who believed salvation was reserved for an elite few, typically themselves. They hoped Jesus would affirm their exclusionary views, but he reverses their expectations. Their exclusionary attitude, thinking only a few like them would be saved, is the broad path to destruction. Salvation is not limited to a few but available to those who embrace the inclusive and self-giving values of God's kingdom. The parallels to Matthew 7 are evident in the owner's attitude in Luke 13, similar to the phrase "I never knew you." This rejection is not about eternal damnation but a merciful denial of who these people have become. Their attitudes and behaviors are incompatible with the values of God's kingdom. They are not ready for union with God, and thus, God refuses to recognize them as they are. The narrow gate represents a call to transformation and readiness for divine union rather than a predestined exclusion of many. The lessons from these passages are not just about understanding the final judgment layout but about demanding a transformation in attitude. Our attitude toward the first who are last and as the last who become first cannot be exclusionary but must be one of self-giving love. These themes are recurrent in Jesus' teachings, emphasizing that salvation is about adopting a humble, inclusive, and loving approach to others. Robert Capon's Christological analysis offers an insightful perspective by viewing these passages as grace parables in judgment clothing. The shutting of the door signifies the end of trying to achieve salvation through ordinary means, emphasizing that only through the narrow door-representing Jesus and his teachings-can one inherit eternal life. This grace-focused interpretation suggests that the narrow gate is about the exclusivity of the path to salvation through Christ, not about the number of people who will ultimately be saved. Ironically, those who cite these passages to argue that only a few will be saved may find themselves among the "last" to enter heaven. Their exclusionary mindset, which Jesus warns against, is precisely what the broad path of destruction entails. Jesus' teaching here is a reversal of expectations, showing that God's judgment is not about excluding many but about transforming attitudes and inviting all to embrace the values of the kingdom. Thus the "narrow" gates in Luke and Matthew do not imply that many will be lost. Instead, they emphasize the need for repentance, right action, and a transformation of character. Jesus challenges exclusionary attitudes, calls for inclusive and self-giving love, and offers a path to salvation through a relationship with him. The narrow gate symbolizes the necessary transformation and readiness for union with God, not a predestined exclusion of the majority. Also this is a poorly argued video promoting the idea that only a few will be saved, asserting that this belief is mandatory for Catholics, because it quote mines For a teaching to be considered infallible within the Church, it must meet one of three criteria: (1) it must be part of Tradition, such as from an ecumenical council, (2) it must be an ex cathedra statement by the Pope, or (3) it must be taught by the "ordinary and universal magisterium." If a belief does not meet any of these criteria, it is not an infallible teaching, no matter what individual bishops may have said. While it might be an implied teaching, Catholics are free to accept or reject it. There is no ex cathedra statement or ecumenical council declaring that only a few people will be saved, leaving the only possibility that the ordinary and universal magisterium teaches or has taught this. However, proving this is challenging. Vatican II offers the most developed and authoritative explanation of when the ordinary and universal magisterium teaches infallibly: Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held (Lumen Gentium, 25; cf. CIC 749 §2). Vatican II indicates the following criteria must be met for the ordinary and universal magisterium to define a teaching: 1. The bishops of the world maintain communion among themselves. 2. They maintain communion with the successor of Peter. 3. They teach authentically (i.e., authoritatively). 4. They teach on a matter of faith and morals. 5. They are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held. The first two conditions require that the bishops not be in a state of schism, defined as "the refusal of submission to the supreme pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him" (CIC 751). The third condition stipulates that the bishops must teach on a matter authoritatively; it is not sufficient for them to privately hold an opinion among themselves-it must be communicated to the faithful as an authoritative teaching. The fourth condition demands that the subject matter concerns "faith and morals," meaning it must either be a revealed truth or one necessary to properly protect and explain revealed truth. It's important to note that "morals" (Latin, *mores*) encompasses aspects of Christian life that extend beyond the principles of moral theology. The final condition involves three specific elements: a) The bishops must reach a consensus, generally understood as a moral unanimity among them. It isn't enough if only a portion or even a majority agrees; however, it does not require every single bishop's agreement. b) The bishops must agree on one specific truth. It is not sufficient if they consider multiple positions legitimate; they must converge on a single, specific truth. c) They must agree that this truth is "definitively to be held" by the faithful, thus ending any legitimate debate. If the bishops merely agree that the teaching should be held, it would be authoritative but not infallible. Infallibility is only engaged when the teaching is considered absolutely mandatory. (Note: The possibility of bishops defining non-revealed truths is why the phrase "definitively to be held" is used instead of "definitively to be believed.") It is sometimes mistakenly believed that teachings defined by the ordinary magisterium must have always been held. This is not the case. Vatican II clarified that bishops teach infallibly when the conditions mentioned above are met. If, at a certain point in history, the bishops achieve the necessary consensus, the teaching becomes infallible from that moment onward. It’s possible that a consensus did not previously exist or that the idea had not yet occurred to earlier generations of bishops, as is the case with some truths implicit in the deposit of faith or those belonging to the secondary object of infallibility. Similarly, it’s not enough for a teaching to have always existed within the Church. An idea may have been part of the Church’s consciousness from the beginning, but it might have been regarded as just one of several legitimate opinions or as a lower-order teaching. Only when the bishops reach a morally unanimous consensus that it is "definitively to be held" does the teaching become infallible. Important: Therefore, it *isn't enough* to compile a catalogue of quotations from church figures across centuries to prove that a teaching is infallible under the ordinary and universal magisterium (what you have done here). For such a claim, the quotations must demonstrate that the teaching is definitively to be held. If, in their time, church leaders only taught in a way that required "religious assent of will and intellect," then the teaching would be longstanding but not infallible. As with any other exercise of the magisterium, it is the definitiveness-not the duration-of the teaching that determines infallibility. Thus, the non-definitive understanding that prevailed for many centuries, which interpreted certain passages of Scripture as supporting a geocentric view of the cosmos, did not make this teaching infallible; the same applies to the doctrine of the fewness of the saved. So while the belief in the fewness of the saved may have been held by many within the Church, it does not meet the stringent criteria required for infallibility as laid out by Vatican II. For a teaching to be considered infallible, it must be universally agreed upon by the bishops in communion with the Pope, taught authoritatively, and concern a matter of faith and morals, with a clear consensus that it is definitively to be held by the faithful. The idea that only a few will be saved has not been defined in such a manner by any ecumenical council, ex cathedra statement, or the ordinary and universal magisterium. (For more see Jimmy Atkins book 'Teaching with Authority: How to Cut Through Doctrinal Confusion & Understand What the Church Really Says')
Why are you mentioning the magisterium as if that's the authority that is being appealed to? There have been ecumenical councils stating that the unanimous consent of the Church Fathers and Scholastic Theologians are to be taken as infallible. The Council of Trent -Session IV states: “No one...shall - in matters of faith and of morals ... - interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church...hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the *unanimous consent of the Fathers;* even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.” Pope Pius IX in Tuas Libenter says: “For, even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and constant consent are *held by Catholic Theologians to belong to faith.”* I also peal - absolutely peal - at the thought that you consider the counsel of contemporary scholars as worthy to adduce in your exegesis of Scripture, as if the wisdom of both you and they come even close enough to outstripping the wisdom of the Fathers and Saints. We get it; your faith is rocked by this doctrine, however, that's not a fault of the doctrine itself, but of your own faith.
@@venture7486 " We get it; your faith is rocked by this doctrine" . Why don't you specify what exactly is being rocked by this doctrine. To me it seems that what is being rocked is The idea in people's mind that they have a relatively *likely (edited) chance of being saved by God's grace.
@@Dan-mm7gc Most people do have a reasonable chance at salvation. The first hurdle is to get people to even care about their salvation. The second hurdle is to get the people that do care to *persevere,* because most Christians treat their faith as something they can terminate and resurrect at will for convenience's sake instead of a marathon that has to be endured diligently with ground teeth. For me, I'd say one who does this: 1. Go to Mass every Sunday and receives Eucharist in a state of grace 2. Makes a good confession with a thorough examination of conscience beforehand. 3. Observe the Church's obligatory holy days and fasts 4. Pray every day (at least one Hail Mary and Our Father if you're too indisposed for the day) 5. Doesn't neglect to render good works as they come, if they are able to do so. Has a guaranteed chance of going to Heaven. Really, it's THAT easy. It's not that God's standard is too high, but our piety is so astonishingly low. If we trust in the Lord, we can certainly prevail.
@@venture7486 Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I appreciate the care with which you approach these important topics regarding the authority of the magisterium, the role of the Church Fathers and Scholastic Theologians, and the interpretation of Scripture. While it’s true that Catholics are required to assent to both infallible and fallible teachings of the Church, there is an important distinction in the level of assent required. Infallible teachings require “the assent of faith,” meaning they must be believed with divine and catholic faith. Fallible teachings, on the other hand, require “religious submission of intellect and will,” meaning they should be adhered to with respect and obedience, but they do not carry the same absolute authority as infallible teachings. This allows for a certain degree of theological reflection and even, in some cases, respectful questioning. As Donum Veritatis notes, it isn’t always possible to clear up a theologian’s difficulties: “It can also happen that at the conclusion of a serious study, undertaken with the desire to heed the Magisterium’s teaching without hesitation, the theologian’s difficulty remains because the arguments to the contrary seem more persuasive to him. Faced with a proposition to which he feels he cannot give his intellectual assent, the theologian nevertheless has the duty to remain open to a deeper examination of the question. For a loyal spirit, animated by love for the Church, such a situation can certainly prove a difficult trial. It can be a call to suffer for the truth, in silence and prayer, but with the certainty that if the truth really is at stake, it will ultimately prevail” (31). **This indicates that even members of the faithful might find themselves wrestling with non-infallible Church teachings. Living with such tension can be a challenging and painful experience, but it’s important to remain prayerful and open to further understanding. This is the position I find myself in, which allows me to remain a Catholic without feeling compelled to accept this particular teaching as definitive.** 1. The Role of the Magisterium: You mentioned that the authority being appealed to is the magisterium, as if this were not sufficient. However, it’s crucial to understand that the magisterium, which includes both the ordinary and universal magisterium, plays a foundational role in determining what Catholics are required to believe. As defined by Vatican I and further clarified by Vatican II, the ordinary and universal magisterium requires the consensus of the entire episcopate (the body of bishops) in communion with the Pope for a teaching to be considered infallible. This isn’t just about the theological consensus among scholars or theologians; it requires the authoritative and unified teaching of the bishops themselves, who, through their ordination, possess a unique teaching authority within the Church. 2. Unanimous Consent of the Fathers: Regarding the Council of Trent and its emphasis on the unanimous consent of the Church Fathers, it’s important to note that this principle primarily applies to the interpretation of Scripture. The Council of Trent Session IV does indeed affirm that no one is to interpret Scripture in a way that contradicts the unanimous consent of the Fathers. However, this does not automatically make every interpretation held by some of the Fathers infallible. The consensus must be near-unanimous and pertain to the core tenets of faith. Moreover, when considering the doctrine of the fewness of the saved, it’s clear that there wasn't unanimous consent among the Fathers. In fact, several notable Church Fathers held views that were more inclusive or even universalist in nature, such as:* - *Origen: Who speculated on the eventual restoration of all souls.* - *Gregory of Nyssa: Who expressed hope for the ultimate salvation of all people.* - *Isaac of Nineveh: Known for emphasizing God's universal love and the possibility of universal salvation.* 3. Pope Pius IX’s "Tuas Libenter": I have read Pope Pius IX’s letter, but it’s important to consider its full context. While it’s true that the letter mentioned that divine faith is not limited to matters defined by ecumenical councils or the Roman pontiffs, it was also acknowledging the importance of the ordinary magisterium. However, by the time of Vatican I (1870), the qualifier “universal” had been added to this phrase to clarify that the whole episcopate had to be in agreement. The ordinary magisterium exercised by an individual bishop or pope wouldn’t be enough. Vatican I stated: “All those things are to be believed with divine and catholic faith that are contained in the word of God, written or handed down, and which by the Church, either in solemn judgment or through her ordinary and universal magisterium are proposed for belief as having been divinely revealed” (De Filius 3; DH 3011). This places the authority squarely within the episcopate and their unified teaching authority, not merely in the hands of theological consensus. 4. Contemporary Scholars and Faith: Your critique of contemporary scholars suggests that they do not match the wisdom of the Fathers and Saints, and you imply that one's faith might be shaken by newer interpretations. While it’s essential to respect the Church’s tradition, it’s also important to engage with current theological developments. The Church’s understanding of doctrine has evolved and developed over time through both tradition and reasoned theological inquiry. The contributions of contemporary scholars should not be dismissed outright but evaluated in light of the Church’s enduring teaching and the guidance of the magisterium. Theological exploration has always been part of the Church’s intellectual tradition, and engaging with it does not necessarily indicate a lack of faith but rather a desire to deepen one’s understanding of that faith. In summary, while the belief in the fewness of the saved has been held by some within the Church, it does not meet the stringent criteria required for infallibility as clarified by Vatican I and Vatican II. The doctrine lacks the necessary unanimous consent of the Fathers and the universal agreement of the episcopate. While tradition is essential, so too is the living magisterium's role in interpreting and defining that tradition for today. Therefore, while the view of the fewness of the saved might be one perspective within the Church, it cannot be imposed on the faithful as a doctrine that must be believed. Instead, Catholics are encouraged to engage with Church teachings thoughtfully and in communion with the ongoing guidance of the magisterium.
“Enter ye in at the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate and strait is the way that leadeth to life and few there are that find it!” (Mt. 7:13-14) Pope St. Gregory the Great, Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 38, 6th century: “8.…The more the wicked abound, so much the more must we suffer with them in patience; for on the threshing-floor few are the grains carried into the barns, but high are the piles of chaff burned with fire.”
This is an image of destruction (i.e., annihilationism would be more accurate for this depiction of the postmortem state), not eternal conscious torment. The NT is not consistent in its eschatology; however, St Paul believed all were saved, along with many church fathers venerated in the East. Chaff being burned with fire, in the St Gregory the Great quote, is, again, a picture of DESTRUCTION, not ETERNAL TORMENT.
@@kaye_kang1 annihilationism was not taught by any early church teacher, and directly contradicts the obvious meaning of Christ. Further, it's absurd. God knew from the beginning how you would react to his love. If annihilation were ever on the table, he simply never would have made you in the first place. Because to completely and utterly destroy something he made would be a far greater evil. You fear hell. And this is good. But the proper response is to submit to Christ, and with the help of his grace to amend your life. Not to preach heresy which will only guarantee you end up burning.
@@marvalice3455 The primary injunction of believing in ECT is not to think. "Don't think, just feel! You'll go to hell if you ask too many questions!" You did not respond to my point adequately. Chaff in fire burns up into ashes; thus it's an image of destruction. I do not see how annihilationism contradicts the "obvious meaning of Christ."
@@kaye_kang1 I see you just ignored my logical argument. We all know why, it's because you cannot actually address it without resorting to even more heresy.
Do you think Nelson Rockefeller, former Vice President of the United States who allegedly died from a heart attack while having sex would be in hell if that’s true?
I know I'm being scrupulous, but what degree of touching your willie is a mortal sin? (Seriously) I am resisting very much so and I will go to confession, if the Lord allows. I may have failed in small degree, but believe I have failed nonetheless. I don't want to die in my sin, please pray for me!
This is not the sort of thing it's helpful to ask random strangers on the internet about since we don't know you or your situation. If you need an answer, speak to someone in your life whose moral formation you trust (friend, family member, etc.). Asking a priest for clarity during Confession is one option. In the meantime, be assured of God's love for you even if you have sinned And pro tip: stay away from videos like this one if you tend to be scrupulous. Even if they contain true information, they will only serve to make those tendencies worse and promote an anxiety which is "the greatest evil that can befall a soul, except sin" (Francis de Sales, doctor of the Church)
@@a.ihistory5879we aren't pelagians, no natural work of any kind can merit a supernatural reward, if you are in sin you have thrown all your good works away. If you aren't in sin, you have given over all your good works to Christ. That you cannot earn heaven is Catholic dogma
90% positive I’m going to Hell. I love Jesus but I have no faith. I try but having faith in anything in 2024 just feels foolish. I dunno. From where I sit, evil totally won and the gates of Hell triumphed, not only over the Church, but over everything. Including me😢
@@levipatterson1905 1 John 5:16-17 There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.
Dwong, I'm curious as to what your thoughts are on playing a game like GTA 6 (when it releases). On the one hand, it will 100% feature sexual content and other immoral activites, so that could pose a problem. On the other hand, if one exercises prudence and is not indulging in such content and ones intention in playing the game is not impure, would that still be problematic? Obviously, if it is a near occasion for a particular person, he ought to avoid it. But what if it isn't? Would the content itself be problematic, regardless of subjective circumstances?
@@dwong9289So RDR1 and RDR2 are ok? They are set over a century ago when people were obviously far more modest, so sexual content is practically zero.
Good video. But about the topic, there's a observation very important. The most that are lost 99%, are, because sins against chastity. So, this is the virtue more important to observe among anothers, specially humilty.
When they say the majority of Catholics are damned, are there any qualifications? Do they simply mean anyone who is baptized a Catholic or anyone who is actively living a Catholic life? Obviously today many Catholics are unfaithful to Church teaching, and so one could say the majority will be damned, but what about Catholics who try to live a Catholic life and actually submit to Church teaching? Will the majority of those also be damned?
They mean adult Catholics. Although this is disputed among the Scholastics. Just look around and ask yourself how many adult Catholics go to mass every Sunday, don’t contracept, believe in the real presence, etc. Then you realize the fewness of the saved among adult Catholics isn’t because God is harsh, but because people don’t care. If you work with God’s grace and pray the Rosary everyday you will be saved, 100%
@@dwong9289eh I wouldn’t say 100 percent, that’s a presumption. You can pray the rosary every day and be in good graces but still stumble and fall into mortal sin.
i mean St Alphonsus Liguori said that it was a mortal sin to go see an immodest play. the plays back then were nothing compared to 99.9% of movies, videogames, music, etc. today. even something like lotr or harry potter would've been considered meister eckhart tier back in even the 1700s. so taking into account that, and the fact that the overwhelming majority of even "trads" deny that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation, and other dogmas which pertain to said dogma, you can imagine that if there were few saved in the past, these are as the times of Noah were.
@@countryboyred it was a promise given by Mary. it's not that if you pray the Rosary and if you die in a state of mortal sin you'll still be saved - it's that Mary's intercession will be grant you so much grace that you either won't fall into mortal sin, or alternatively if you do, you won't be allowed to die in that state. ofc however, one needs to pray with correct intention.
@@TeamCavalier123 What does he mean by going to see an immodest play? Is it a mortal sin to accidentally stumble across an immodest scene or is he talking about actively seeking out something that specifically is immodest? What about violent video games or movies (even if not sexual)?
@@dwong9289 If 1 in a million or 100,000 will be saved, unless you are a Saint at level of Saint Padre Pio, despite all your prayers and fast, you won't be saved. At that point You might just enjoy your life, it would be the rational think to do. If those are the numbers we have materially no hope for salvation. Materially, not formally. Also, the Church should raise the bar a lot more, like convent discipline to have a shred of hope of Salvation. The Church would be materially guilty of sending people to Hell. Not Formally, but materially speaking yes. Again, if those number are correct.
@@andreaboghi5820This assumes that trying to be a Saint is not as enjoyable. That it’s more enjoyable to betray your savior and add to his suffering on Calvary. Even if you don’t make it to heaven you can still have a much more preferable life in this earth and in the world to come by following Christ’s teachings.
@@andreaboghi5820 Friend, don't despair. The way to salvation is easy, and it's not as if God has set up snares for everybody in a cruel bid to consign everybody to Hell. On the contrary, if you read up on the history of the Church, He has actually lavished us with a multitude of ways to better assure our salvation: devotionals, scapulars, medals, pardons, indulgences, and consecrations to all kinds of saints-greatest of all, the Blessed Virgin (one of the promises of the Rosary is that if you recite it everyday until death, you will have an entire court of intercessors to advocate for you on the day of your judgement). His mercy is tireless. But beyond all that, the way to salvation is exceptionally simple: go to Mass every Sunday and receive the body of Christ in a state of grace, observe all obligatory days and fasts by the Church, withhold absolutely nothing-and I do mean NOTHING-in your confessions, keep a firm and reliable prayer routine, and just be good to everyone. Read the Holy Scriptures daily for guidance, too, so that you may educate yourself in what is good and what is ill. And that's it. The multitude aren't damned because they fail to attain to some lofty standard of piety, but because they can barely keep what minimum they are beholden to.
![เปิดบ้าน พี่ตูน Bodyslam หลังใหม่คนแรก ที่ภูเก็ต l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/flFwcmyDQSk/mqdefault.jpg)
0:00 Introduction
3:29 Doctors of the Church
25:55 Saints and Blesseds
43:55 Early Christians
50:37 Scholastic Theologians
1:21:52 Ending
Our Lady is the surest way to heaven...
"What Lucifer has lost by pride, Mary has gained by humility. What Eve has damned and lost by disobedience, Mary has saved by obedience. Eve, in obeying the serpent, has destroyed all her children together with herself, and has delivered them to him; Mary, being perfectly faithful to God, has saved all her children and servants together with herself, and has consecrated them to His Majesty."
St. Louis De Montfort, True Devotion to Mary, pg. 41
No Jesus is???? You sound like what protestants think catholics sound like
Jesus is the surest way to heaven not Mary. You sound like what protestants think cathokics sound like
Disgusting. You've replaced Christ with Mary as your "saviour"
@@agaphtosShe saved us all by giving birth to the man who saved us on the cross
So true!
Pray for my salvation bros
it's not easy to accept, but it's worse to reject the truth because it hurts.
How is it the truth? The more intellectual gymnastics you do to assent to a moral absurdity INCREASES not LESSENS your spiritual callousness and hatred of others. Eternal conscious torment is an absolutely disgusting, false, and contradictory idea (assuming you hold Sacred Scripture to be infallible & adhere to the claims classically made about the nature of God in the Christian tradition).
@@kaye_kang1 no. You are not smarter than Jesus, it's not mental gymnastics, you just don't like it, and are being a petulant child about it.
@@kaye_kang1 Eternal Conscious torment was taught for centuries within the catholic worldview.
@@kaye_kang1 🤯
@@kaye_kang1 It would be appreciated if you didn't spread Blasphemy, we pray you repent.
I will pray for all of you. Please also pray for me. "Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. Draw near to God and he will draw near to you."
Please pray for me as I look to start RCIA. I will be praying for you all - may we all meet in heaven one day 🙏🏻
God bless you bro, may you be one of the elect 🙏
This comment section is terrible…
Most people don’t want to swallow this pill because they realize that most people they know and even themselves would go to hell.
It’s not biblical, it’s not a church teaching, and it’s insane to believe in a god that sends people to hell in these circumstances
@@tookie36Luke 13:23-24
And some one said to him, “Lord, will those who are saved be few?” And he said to them, 24 “Strive to enter by the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able.
@@dwong9289 yes we can all cherry pick verses to support a viewpoint. I am aware of the Protestant reformation 😂
@@tookie36 The Church Fathers, Doctors of the Church, and Scholastic theologians unanimously exegete this verse as meaning the fewness of the saved. As a Catholic? You can’t deny this.
@@dwong9289 there is no such catholic teaching on who or how many will go to hell. Dare we hope all men shall be saved is in line with church teaching. As well as church fathers since the beginning who would never claim “most people go to hell”
1Peter1-18 if the righteousness are scarcely saved, where shall the ungodly and sinners appear.
This Video is brutal but just because it is brutal doesn’t mean it’s not true. Jesus was not some kind of 1970s Hippie that always talked about Peace, Love and Harmony but he is God that calls us to believe in him, repent and do his Will. Catholics need to understand that some aspects of our Faith are uncomfortable.
Edit: If you worry about the Salvation of the Souls of other People then pray for them, it’s 100% more effective then falling into despair.
@@slaveagle1995 thank you bro, God bless you
@@dwong9289 may he bless You too bro. 🙏🏻
Time to Repent
Amen
I just thought, asking non Catholics to voice these videos could actually be a very good way of evangelizing non-intentionally lol.
In my experience, these claims often only push non-Catholic Christians further away from Catholicism, because it gives the impression of a divine plan that is less loving and far more brutal than whatever the non-Catholic already believes.
@@vaskaventi6840can confirm. This has only reinforced my belief in Sola Fide and other Solas. Trust in Jesus and pray for me.
@@SampleText-sb4kh God bless and keep you. I'm not at a place where the solas seem very likely to me, but videos such as these push me in that direction. I will keep searching
@@SampleText-sb4kh Not to be that guy, but if this video somehow affirmed your faith in the deformation of the protestant movement then you need to seriously reconsider your beliefs and humble yourself. This teaching aside from the consensus of the fathers is explicitly within scripture. I used to be a Protestant as well, hope you find truth and paradise and come to the true faith.
@@hap1678 I thank you. I was born Catholic without believing, and have come to affirm the reformed position.
I've seen a lot of Trent Horn debates, and I can see how Catholics and Orthodox have a very valid claim to legitimacy IF many of the debatable points do fall in their favor. But I still cannot reconcile the most controversial points of Catholic doctrine with my personal experience with God.
As I said, pray you're correct and I incorrect. Pray that I get into the right camp before death. I'll do the same for all who believe in Christ.
I honestly have little interest in being yet another soul in the sea of people complaining about the harshness of this, shall we say, doctrine. Far be it from me to go around saying "It's fine, this is not dogma so you don't have to believe in it," "Actually, [insert heretical universalist nonsense here]," etc. But I certainly have to point out how poisonous this concept can be to the average person's mentality. One way or another, it leads either to despair or to an implicit resignation with regards to the eternal fate of your fellow man: A person with non-Christian friends, whose evangelization efforts turned out unfruitful, is forced to either tearfully hand over the matter to God (In which case, you have little reason to believe they're anything other than damned. No reason to believe your loved ones are any different from the rest of the damned multitudes) or to simply be at peace with the fact that they'll very likely be forever lost.
There's something almost monstrous about this peace. To be at complete ease with the fact that every friend you make, every face you see on the streets or on TV or in the Internet, is almost definitely and certainly damned. There certainly are those who know this and in response will just seek to shunt themselves off from the world, in the sheer bitterness that they harbor for it, and yet this will be just a defocusing done to make the pill easier to ignore. Once you deindividuate the multitudes and see them as simply "Fools on their way to perdition," it becomes far easier to accept their eternal loss.
In the face of this, the prayerful hope for others becomes a bit of a joke. A sort of coping mechanism, at best. As if there is a small moving spotlight marking off the elect from the damned, and you (And I use "you" as a general term here, not with any specific referent) just hope that it will happen to fall on the people you care for. Few are rigorists when it comes to their non-Catholic grandma who recently passed away (And yet, we must love the law of God just as we love God himself. So why mourn over those who are likely damned? It's their just desserts, after all, no matter who they were for us). The advice to trust in divine mercy ultimately rings hollow; it will do little to comfort those who suffer for all people, and not simply for their own personal salvation.
In either case: Keep me in your prayers, brother. I am afraid I might be hanging by a thread.
I implore you to live in forgetfulness of the eternal destination of the souls of others. Remember, judge not, lest ye be judged; one of the ways in which we invite judgement on ourselves is by despairing over the fate of others as to believe that there is scarcely any hope for them to come to faith and persevere. Yes, the multitude will be damned, but as much as you are unaware of who is numbered amongst the few, so are you unaware as to who will stand amongst the damned. God did not reserve that knowledge for us; and so, in the spirit of charity, try to keep a hopeful outlook of everyone you meet. It's safer that way.
The waters fine on the other side, you won’t drown despite what they tell you and there are plenty of people that are here to help you swim.
Seems like someone is finally catching up on how monstrous this religion really is
@@DukeWhitejust this one interpretation of it.
I fully agree with you. I think massa damnata is spiritual poison and those who advocate it have often 'depersonalized' non-Catholic 'masses', often claiming empathy but lacking it in reality.
I don't think I could ever find it in myself to fully believe and accept and internalize massa damnata, I don't know how I could possibly reconcile it with the love of God or universal will for salvation, all the solutions I hear just sound hand wavey and superficial to me.
I want to become Catholic (as an inquirer) but videos like this make it hard.
The more you grow in your faith, the more you start to accept that this may be the case.
We must discern that there are three strains of the fewness of the saved. The first strain, which is supported by the Consensus of the Fathers, is the notion that the majority of those who die are damned. The second strain is that the majority of those who are Christian will not be saved, which is supported by many Doctors of the Church, particularly those who dealt with Heresies, particularly Protestantism. The third strain is that most Catholics will not be saved, which is a minority Theological position.
The first position and second positions are reasonable in regards to Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium, to which the quotes from the Fathers and the Magisterium can be easily understood in light of. The third position is spiritual poison: Our God is a God of hope, and the notion that a majority of those who are Catholic, in a proper sense, are not saved, leads to spiritual despair. It, by its logical spiritual conclusion, is absurd, and should thus be rejected.
I think the 3rd strain sounds reasonable among certain regions, like Mexico or other countries that claims to be Catholic.
Oh? Catholics in a proper sense? Then wouldn’t all Catholics in a proper sense be saved?
@@thelonelysponge5029not the ones who happen to die after falling into mortal sin due to bad timing, whether it be of health or other disasters.
I have serious concerns with this. Namely, its implications for divine hiddenness. The truth of Catholicism is not obvious to much of the non-Catholic world, if you think it is so obvious that there's no debate, you are in a bubble and have not engaged with the highest level scholarship the other sides have to offer.
If God wished, God could inscribe a message confirming Catholicism onto the moon and all parts of the world would likely become members. If simply being a faithful member of the Catholic Church rather than being a faithful member of another Christian denomination vastly increased odds of salvation, then how would the fact that we have such divine hiddenness about Catholicism around the world mesh with God's universal will for salvation?
Being Catholic doesn’t in any way guarantee you a ticket to heaven. Most Catholics are Catholic in name only. Many of them die in unrepentant sin. It’s not unreasonable at all to say that most Catholics are going to hell.
“My yoke is easy and my burden is light.” Salvation is eminently possible for all. The number of the saved is not useful to dwell on because it
1. Makes you turn inward, hyper-concerned about your own situation
2. Makes you approach the sacrament of penance in an OCD autistic way that is not consonant with the historic practice of penance.
3. Makes you think it is your job to read moral theology manuals and hold yourself to the most rigorous opinions in them, even though you don’t have the prerequisite learning in philosophy to understand the genre of these statements
4. Inclines you to attempt to be your own spiritual director. Believe me, if you brought this stuff up to a good spiritual director they would tell you to trust in God and cut it out
5. Makes you distrustful of your confessor as too lax.
6. Makes you distrustful of God who is laying snares to damn even the majority of his church
7. Makes you susceptible to pride and spiritual pride if you determine you’ve checked all the boxes to get into heaven
8. Makes you distrustful to saints who spoke of God’s mercy
9. Makes you think it’s your crusade to make the church promote this point of view
10. Sidetrack your spiritual growth (actually endangering yourself)
God shows that he loves you in these cases with tough love: he withdraws his grace so that you fall into repeated mortal sin, so that you learn the only thing possible is to trust in his grace, and so that you learn that he loves you and everyone else.
We have no idea what God will choose to do. He does not reveal the statistics for a good reason: it inclines us to presumption or despair-usually the second-which are mortal sins against Hope.
It is not easy to see how damnation is consonant with God’s love. It is real, but if you are focusing on damnation more than on salvation, your spiritual life is stunted.
I see what you are saying but this video is more in response to universalists and hopeful universalists. Personally, I don't think we can know the number of the saved. But we know they are few.
"Believe in Jesus Christ and a select few might be saved" 😂
Amen! recovery programs are full of people raised in fundamentalist fear based religion.
Not the best video to watch after i sin again and relapsed with the 🌽, pleaee pray for me i feel so doomed
Go to confession, brother. Our Lord is waiting for you.
Pray the Rosary brother. He who prays is saved. Trust in Divine mercy.
@@Laj-t9k Yeah might need to go ASAP
What is incredible is you start to realize how lost people are. It's very sad. There's very few people who ACTUALLY believe.
How do you know you are one of them. Maybe someone thinks the same about you.
@@TheNemkris Correct. There is barely any faith left, including for me.
@@digidox7900I came from extremely zealous to agnostic. What you make of me then? And the idea of belief is also quite complicated. The etymology of belief has to do with a feeling of love. I simply can't feel love. And many can't do that. Most are emotionally shut. And to Repent is a change of heart. How can you have a change of heart if you can't feel. And how can you even make yourself to feel in the first place? What if you can't trust? Love requires trust. What if you can't trust due to past betrayal and your heart simply doesn't open up? Judging by what it says that God chooses from the beggining of time. It looks as if your repentance means nothing and you can neither change your heart or have that feeling. It becames an absurd doctrine and either there are missing pieces or this reality is that contradictory. And all this seems like a double bind scenario damned if you do and damned if you don't...
@@AnnonymousPrime-ks4uf Repentence and love are acts of the will, not feelings. You don't have to feel to choose God in your will.
@@dwong9289 How can you choose if you can't trust? How can you form a relation or have first contact in the dark forrest, free for all, nietachean will to power, scenarios? How is the 0 even possible and what stops the infinite non ordered set of tav to take over into the domains of imaginary numbers and keeping with the illusions of suffering? Why would total annihilation not be the natural outcome as it happens for some animals and lower human nature to lead to absolute despair and insanity as well as multi exhaustion on all levels? If it was easier than this perhaps there would have been more to trust. But that is not the case.
If you strive towards the divine with all of your heart and the entirety of your being to conform yourself will to God then this teaching should not worry you, but your worries should be for others.
Tragic, but true and mustn’t be ignored.
I enjoy this format showing consensus , would love to see different topics where theologians and doctors show consensus on a topic
@@FIlozverCing I might want to do a video on the Church Fathers on the Blessed Virgin Mary in the future!
This doctrine is certainly hard to accept, but this seems to be true, this can be seen more easily in America.
We must become great saints for the salvation of souls and by penance and self denial bring God's mercy to lost souls
Thank you for the scrupulosity warning. I do suffer a great deal from it so I appreciate the heads up.
God bless bro.
@@dwong9289 Thank you brother, God bless you as well. Keep up the great work.
Very important and excellent video. The fewness of the saved is an optimal retort to the Protestant insistence of justification by faith alone.
@@DJ_Frankfurter thanks brother!
We ought not to despair of this truth, rather receive it with vigor and convert ourselves to it. Trusting in God, his Mercy and his Judgement.
Pray for my salvation, please
Whenever St. Alphonsus spoke about hell and condemnation, he always tried to console his listeners by also talking about mercy and heaven. If you are going to talk about the fewness of the saved, you also have to talk about God's mercy so as to avoid despair.
I did at the beginning 1:06 and at the end 1:22:15. You should watch the video.
Thank you for the video (although it's not the same without your voice 🤣). It's very useful to have all the authorities gathered in one place.
@@xzaiden1291 you’re welcome bro. God bless!
Dwong I am in great need of help. My (earthly) mother is a Christian, but she ONLY believes in the 4 gospels. So all of the Old Testament and the rest of the New Testament is not something that she believes. I just find it very troubling and I said to her: “ Without the prophecies of the Old Testament, the people would not be able to see him as the Messiah.” Please help me. God bless 🙏
@@Ejee511 praying for her 🙏
Prayer and sacrifices goes a long way according to Mother Mary at Fatima!
Liked and added to playlist. Really appreciate you doing this type of work, which very few people dare approach.
@@whitevortex8323 thanks bro, we have to discuss hard topics sometimes!
Sobering
Please pray for a dying family member of mine.
Love the message man, I am very solid in spirituality and scrupulosity and your videos help. One request that would really help that though is you maybe refuting sedevacantism please… they’re the only ones that get me hung up nowadays. Love ya brother ✝️
All who are dames are damed on acount of there own sin, Gods yolk is essy and his mother holds us we need only to thrust ourselves into his arms as frail as we are by the sacrements and he will carry us acrose dwep waters
Let us pray for the souls of all Catholics who have fallen away from the faith, who are lukewarm, who are suffering from sloth, and who are in state of mortal sin
This teaching, to me, definitively would place the Gospel amongst the most dreadful pieces of news ever told. I cannot bring myself to believe it, and that makes me very sad because I really feel drawn to Catholicism but every single figure of my conscience screams against this. Perhaps Orthodoxy is true (although they seem weak in the Filioque). I really don't know, I'm just sad. Whatever argument you put against other Christian denominations, i find it outweighed by the untenability of massa damnata.
Maybe I'll meet with some priests and pray that dwong is wrong and that this isn't dogma.
Let it be known that at this moment, this video is the biggest obstacle between me and Catholicism.
@@vaskaventi6840 mass damnata is plainly revealed in Scripture (and that’s how it’s exegeted by the Doctors of the Church, Saints, Scholastics, etc.)
It’s a hard teaching, but we don’t get to just make up which truths we believe in, we are not God. We are supposed to accept His revelation, not make up His revelation.
Orthodox preach the same thing.
@@countryboyred yet dwong's whole argument depends not on a total consensus of all the fathers but rather a particular papal statement on the infallibility of the consensus of the scholastics. This is because once you move outside the scholastics, you end up finding more pushback. Whenever eastern fathers are cited against Dwong, he simply appeals to the mere scholastic consensus as his Trump card. Even if massa damnata is POPULAR amongst Orthodox, there is clearly rejection of it amongst some Fathers, even more so in the East, there is no narrow scholastic infallibility of one particular era to appeal to there
@@LuismaLorca I will do this, God bless you
Humility is a virtue found in all saints. And I believe it is necessary to obtain heaven. In our culture, we have a distorted understanding of it - when we say we are humbled by something - that is not humility. I fall into the pit of pride daily, and I know I do it, but do it almost reflexively. Also, in a catholic men’s group i meet with weekly, I mentioned many saints believed they were wretched, undeserving sinners, and felt they were destined for hell - they did not like that comment. Presumption is also something we need to battle daily. Prayers for all - know the road is narrow.
Consider the number of Catholics out there who get divorced and remarried…..
It’s sad
It's unfortunate, one look at how much we as humans accept evil proves this theory true.
I thought I was a pretty good person until I started taking virtue seriously.
Pray for me brothers
This is one of those hard teachings, one that can convict you or destroy you.
Thank you for reminding me of this. I have to meditate and pray on this and more thoroughly, with the help of God's grace, amend my life more perfectly
I realised that I need a good confession. Thanks for the video. Also the comment section proves why most people won’t make it.
@@Just.arandom1 God bless bro. Dont despair, God wants to save you. Pray to Our Lady of Sorrows for the grace of contrition and a good confession 🙏❤️
While these views and teachings from the Early Church Fathers should be taken with gravity, it should also be understood that they are not made definitive by the Magisterium. Ultimately, there is only One who knows how many He will save.
The teachings of the church fathers and the scholastics are themselves approved and propagated by the magisterium.
Further, to avoid holding a view because you are not absolutely required to hold it shows a lack of docility
@@marvalice3455 If there was an error in what I said, please point it out. CCC 1037 is explicit when it says "God predestines no one to go to hell;" and this is a definitive teaching from the Magisterium.
To say that "we should act with salvific zeal as though most people go to hell" is manifestly different from saying that "most people go to hell". One statement is pedagogical, the other is ontological.
There is also a difference between views (opinions) and teachings of Early Church Fathers. It will do us good not to conflate them.
@@ZxymrCCC 1037 is about rejecting positive antecedent reprobation, reprobation is a Catholic dogma, just read Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.
All of the Scholastic theologians taught the fewness of the saved, and this must be held on to because the Unanimous Consensus of the Scholastic Theologians cannot err
@@dwong9289 If you have sources that demonstrate that reprobation is Catholic dogma, I would love to see them. While I respect the content of Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, it is not a source of dogma nor is it intended to be.
Even if we assume it were dogma, it has no bearing on my original argument that '"most people go to hell" is to be taken as dogma', since "it is possible for a person to go to hell" does not mean "most people go to hell".
You justified the salvation of the few by saying "the Unanimous Consensus of the Scholastic Theologians cannot err". By itself, this statement is false, because they only do not err if they are aligned with magisterial teachings. However, I do agree that salvation of the few is doctrinal. But, "salvation of the few" does not necessarily imply that "most people go to hell".
@@Zxymr you should “The Consensus of the Fathers and Theologians” by Fr. Ripperger, it clearly demonstrates that the consensus of the Scholastic Theologians cannot err since they have been given approbation by the Popes.
This is why Pope Pius IX in Tuas Libenter says:
“For, even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as **divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and constant consent are held by Catholic Theologians to belong to faith.”**
Not “theologian” here refers to Scholastic theologians, not contemporary theologians.
I personally think most people end up in purgatory but stay there for quite a while rather then hell there are though many who do end up in hell only a few get straight to heaven.
That contradicts the Scholastics and Church Fathers exegeting Scripture.
Great video Dwong, just as usual. Loved that Laurentius Berti was added, he is a good writer.
@@Ryotenian7826 God bless brother thanks!
I was real for recording that
@@Big_Steve11 goated
You have a very soothing voice
To the scrupulous out there, this is not dogma, you don't have to hold these view.
The fewness of the saved for all mankind is the consensus of the Church Fathers and scholastics exegeting Scripture, so you must hold it. The fewness of the saved as applied to Christians is not defined though and you can reject that.
@@dwong9289Thanks for clarifying, Dwong.
@@dwong9289 Fair enough.
I think it was pope pius the 9th said, we can't have reasonable hope for people who die outside the Church, but we can have some hope. I got that off Fr ripperger.
@@michaellawlor5625 Yeah you can hope for that, although there is no moral certainty. So pray for them.
I would be interested to see the level of cope when you compare the version of Roman Catholicism presented here to Nostra Aetate. Literally 2 different religions.
Scrupulosity, Despair: Click off.
Cheers.
FACTS
How do you know “most” people go to Hell??? That’s absurd. No one knows the depth of God’s mercy and love.
@@marteld2108 from Scripture and tradition
"For never will anyone who says his Rosary everyday become a formal heretic" Didn't Martin Luther continue to pray the rosary every day?
Idk, sorry bro. But the quote still stands.
@@ReveloChrist I view this quote as a conditional promise that if you should pray the rosary everyday and stay in God’s love you will not be one, but you cannot just stop out of nowhere, also there’s a difference in just saying the words and not having your actions conforming to the mediative prayer
The Papist Hub Big Steve Alan Dwong Hasan Scholastic Answers Milan Jibrīl lore is getting too deep now
This video should be immediately taken down. The "narrow" gates mentioned in both Luke 13:23-30 and Matthew 7:13-14 do not imply that many will be lost. NT Wright's interpretation suggests that these passages refer to the judgment in 70 AD, emphasizing the urgency of making the right choices in a specific historical context rather than an eternal finality. This focus on immediate judgment shifts the implication from eternal loss to a call for repentance and right action in the face of impending disaster.
Jesus responds to those preoccupied with who will be saved-often the "sons of the kingdom" who believed salvation was reserved for an elite few, typically themselves. They hoped Jesus would affirm their exclusionary views, but he reverses their expectations. Their exclusionary attitude, thinking only a few like them would be saved, is the broad path to destruction. Salvation is not limited to a few but available to those who embrace the inclusive and self-giving values of God's kingdom.
The parallels to Matthew 7 are evident in the owner's attitude in Luke 13, similar to the phrase "I never knew you." This rejection is not about eternal damnation but a merciful denial of who these people have become. Their attitudes and behaviors are incompatible with the values of God's kingdom. They are not ready for union with God, and thus, God refuses to recognize them as they are. The narrow gate represents a call to transformation and readiness for divine union rather than a predestined exclusion of many.
The lessons from these passages are not just about understanding the final judgment layout but about demanding a transformation in attitude. Our attitude toward the first who are last and as the last who become first cannot be exclusionary but must be one of self-giving love. These themes are recurrent in Jesus' teachings, emphasizing that salvation is about adopting a humble, inclusive, and loving approach to others.
Robert Capon's Christological analysis offers an insightful perspective by viewing these passages as grace parables in judgment clothing. The shutting of the door signifies the end of trying to achieve salvation through ordinary means, emphasizing that only through the narrow door-representing Jesus and his teachings-can one inherit eternal life. This grace-focused interpretation suggests that the narrow gate is about the exclusivity of the path to salvation through Christ, not about the number of people who will ultimately be saved.
Ironically, those who cite these passages to argue that only a few will be saved may find themselves among the "last" to enter heaven. Their exclusionary mindset, which Jesus warns against, is precisely what the broad path of destruction entails. Jesus' teaching here is a reversal of expectations, showing that God's judgment is not about excluding many but about transforming attitudes and inviting all to embrace the values of the kingdom.
Thus the "narrow" gates in Luke and Matthew do not imply that many will be lost. Instead, they emphasize the need for repentance, right action, and a transformation of character. Jesus challenges exclusionary attitudes, calls for inclusive and self-giving love, and offers a path to salvation through a relationship with him. The narrow gate symbolizes the necessary transformation and readiness for union with God, not a predestined exclusion of the majority.
Also this is a poorly argued video promoting the idea that only a few will be saved, asserting that this belief is mandatory for Catholics, because it quote mines
For a teaching to be considered infallible within the Church, it must meet one of three criteria: (1) it must be part of Tradition, such as from an ecumenical council, (2) it must be an ex cathedra statement by the Pope, or (3) it must be taught by the "ordinary and universal magisterium." If a belief does not meet any of these criteria, it is not an infallible teaching, no matter what individual bishops may have said. While it might be an implied teaching, Catholics are free to accept or reject it.
There is no ex cathedra statement or ecumenical council declaring that only a few people will be saved, leaving the only possibility that the ordinary and universal magisterium teaches or has taught this. However, proving this is challenging.
Vatican II offers the most developed and authoritative explanation of when the ordinary and universal magisterium teaches infallibly: Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held (Lumen Gentium, 25; cf. CIC 749 §2).
Vatican II indicates the following criteria must be met for the ordinary and universal magisterium to define a teaching:
1. The bishops of the world maintain communion among themselves.
2. They maintain communion with the successor of Peter.
3. They teach authentically (i.e., authoritatively).
4. They teach on a matter of faith and morals.
5. They are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.
The first two conditions require that the bishops not be in a state of schism, defined as "the refusal of submission to the supreme pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him" (CIC 751). The third condition stipulates that the bishops must teach on a matter authoritatively; it is not sufficient for them to privately hold an opinion among themselves-it must be communicated to the faithful as an authoritative teaching. The fourth condition demands that the subject matter concerns "faith and morals," meaning it must either be a revealed truth or one necessary to properly protect and explain revealed truth. It's important to note that "morals" (Latin, *mores*) encompasses aspects of Christian life that extend beyond the principles of moral theology.
The final condition involves three specific elements:
a) The bishops must reach a consensus, generally understood as a moral unanimity among them. It isn't enough if only a portion or even a majority agrees; however, it does not require every single bishop's agreement.
b) The bishops must agree on one specific truth. It is not sufficient if they consider multiple positions legitimate; they must converge on a single, specific truth.
c) They must agree that this truth is "definitively to be held" by the faithful, thus ending any legitimate debate. If the bishops merely agree that the teaching should be held, it would be authoritative but not infallible. Infallibility is only engaged when the teaching is considered absolutely mandatory. (Note: The possibility of bishops defining non-revealed truths is why the phrase "definitively to be held" is used instead of "definitively to be believed.")
It is sometimes mistakenly believed that teachings defined by the ordinary magisterium must have always been held. This is not the case. Vatican II clarified that bishops teach infallibly when the conditions mentioned above are met. If, at a certain point in history, the bishops achieve the necessary consensus, the teaching becomes infallible from that moment onward. It’s possible that a consensus did not previously exist or that the idea had not yet occurred to earlier generations of bishops, as is the case with some truths implicit in the deposit of faith or those belonging to the secondary object of infallibility.
Similarly, it’s not enough for a teaching to have always existed within the Church. An idea may have been part of the Church’s consciousness from the beginning, but it might have been regarded as just one of several legitimate opinions or as a lower-order teaching. Only when the bishops reach a morally unanimous consensus that it is "definitively to be held" does the teaching become infallible.
Important: Therefore, it *isn't enough* to compile a catalogue of quotations from church figures across centuries to prove that a teaching is infallible under the ordinary and universal magisterium (what you have done here). For such a claim, the quotations must demonstrate that the teaching is definitively to be held. If, in their time, church leaders only taught in a way that required "religious assent of will and intellect," then the teaching would be longstanding but not infallible. As with any other exercise of the magisterium, it is the definitiveness-not the duration-of the teaching that determines infallibility. Thus, the non-definitive understanding that prevailed for many centuries, which interpreted certain passages of Scripture as supporting a geocentric view of the cosmos, did not make this teaching infallible; the same applies to the doctrine of the fewness of the saved.
So while the belief in the fewness of the saved may have been held by many within the Church, it does not meet the stringent criteria required for infallibility as laid out by Vatican II. For a teaching to be considered infallible, it must be universally agreed upon by the bishops in communion with the Pope, taught authoritatively, and concern a matter of faith and morals, with a clear consensus that it is definitively to be held by the faithful. The idea that only a few will be saved has not been defined in such a manner by any ecumenical council, ex cathedra statement, or the ordinary and universal magisterium.
(For more see Jimmy Atkins book 'Teaching with Authority: How to Cut Through Doctrinal Confusion & Understand What the Church Really Says')
Why are you mentioning the magisterium as if that's the authority that is being appealed to? There have been ecumenical councils stating that the unanimous consent of the Church Fathers and Scholastic Theologians are to be taken as infallible.
The Council of Trent -Session IV states:
“No one...shall - in matters of faith and of morals ... - interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church...hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the *unanimous consent of the Fathers;* even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.”
Pope Pius IX in Tuas Libenter says:
“For, even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and constant consent are *held by Catholic Theologians to belong to faith.”*
I also peal - absolutely peal - at the thought that you consider the counsel of contemporary scholars as worthy to adduce in your exegesis of Scripture, as if the wisdom of both you and they come even close enough to outstripping the wisdom of the Fathers and Saints. We get it; your faith is rocked by this doctrine, however, that's not a fault of the doctrine itself, but of your own faith.
Read Bl. Pius IX Tuas Libenter. You must follow the Unanimous consensus of the Scholastic theologians.
@@venture7486 " We get it; your faith is rocked by this doctrine" . Why don't you specify what exactly is being rocked by this doctrine. To me it seems that what is being rocked is The idea in people's mind that they have a relatively *likely (edited) chance of being saved by God's grace.
@@Dan-mm7gc Most people do have a reasonable chance at salvation. The first hurdle is to get people to even care about their salvation. The second hurdle is to get the people that do care to *persevere,* because most Christians treat their faith as something they can terminate and resurrect at will for convenience's sake instead of a marathon that has to be endured diligently with ground teeth.
For me, I'd say one who does this:
1. Go to Mass every Sunday and receives Eucharist in a state of grace
2. Makes a good confession with a thorough examination of conscience beforehand.
3. Observe the Church's obligatory holy days and fasts
4. Pray every day (at least one Hail Mary and Our Father if you're too indisposed for the day)
5. Doesn't neglect to render good works as they come, if they are able to do so.
Has a guaranteed chance of going to Heaven. Really, it's THAT easy. It's not that God's standard is too high, but our piety is so astonishingly low. If we trust in the Lord, we can certainly prevail.
@@venture7486 Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I appreciate the care with which you approach these important topics regarding the authority of the magisterium, the role of the Church Fathers and Scholastic Theologians, and the interpretation of Scripture.
While it’s true that Catholics are required to assent to both infallible and fallible teachings of the Church, there is an important distinction in the level of assent required. Infallible teachings require “the assent of faith,” meaning they must be believed with divine and catholic faith. Fallible teachings, on the other hand, require “religious submission of intellect and will,” meaning they should be adhered to with respect and obedience, but they do not carry the same absolute authority as infallible teachings. This allows for a certain degree of theological reflection and even, in some cases, respectful questioning.
As Donum Veritatis notes, it isn’t always possible to clear up a theologian’s difficulties:
“It can also happen that at the conclusion of a serious study, undertaken with the desire to heed the Magisterium’s teaching without hesitation, the theologian’s difficulty remains because the arguments to the contrary seem more persuasive to him. Faced with a proposition to which he feels he cannot give his intellectual assent, the theologian nevertheless has the duty to remain open to a deeper examination of the question. For a loyal spirit, animated by love for the Church, such a situation can certainly prove a difficult trial. It can be a call to suffer for the truth, in silence and prayer, but with the certainty that if the truth really is at stake, it will ultimately prevail” (31).
**This indicates that even members of the faithful might find themselves wrestling with non-infallible Church teachings. Living with such tension can be a challenging and painful experience, but it’s important to remain prayerful and open to further understanding. This is the position I find myself in, which allows me to remain a Catholic without feeling compelled to accept this particular teaching as definitive.**
1. The Role of the Magisterium:
You mentioned that the authority being appealed to is the magisterium, as if this were not sufficient. However, it’s crucial to understand that the magisterium, which includes both the ordinary and universal magisterium, plays a foundational role in determining what Catholics are required to believe. As defined by Vatican I and further clarified by Vatican II, the ordinary and universal magisterium requires the consensus of the entire episcopate (the body of bishops) in communion with the Pope for a teaching to be considered infallible. This isn’t just about the theological consensus among scholars or theologians; it requires the authoritative and unified teaching of the bishops themselves, who, through their ordination, possess a unique teaching authority within the Church.
2. Unanimous Consent of the Fathers:
Regarding the Council of Trent and its emphasis on the unanimous consent of the Church Fathers, it’s important to note that this principle primarily applies to the interpretation of Scripture. The Council of Trent Session IV does indeed affirm that no one is to interpret Scripture in a way that contradicts the unanimous consent of the Fathers. However, this does not automatically make every interpretation held by some of the Fathers infallible. The consensus must be near-unanimous and pertain to the core tenets of faith. Moreover, when considering the doctrine of the fewness of the saved, it’s clear that there wasn't unanimous consent among the Fathers. In fact, several notable Church Fathers held views that were more inclusive or even universalist in nature, such as:*
- *Origen: Who speculated on the eventual restoration of all souls.*
- *Gregory of Nyssa: Who expressed hope for the ultimate salvation of all people.*
- *Isaac of Nineveh: Known for emphasizing God's universal love and the possibility of universal salvation.*
3. Pope Pius IX’s "Tuas Libenter":
I have read Pope Pius IX’s letter, but it’s important to consider its full context. While it’s true that the letter mentioned that divine faith is not limited to matters defined by ecumenical councils or the Roman pontiffs, it was also acknowledging the importance of the ordinary magisterium. However, by the time of Vatican I (1870), the qualifier “universal” had been added to this phrase to clarify that the whole episcopate had to be in agreement. The ordinary magisterium exercised by an individual bishop or pope wouldn’t be enough. Vatican I stated:
“All those things are to be believed with divine and catholic faith that are contained in the word of God, written or handed down, and which by the Church, either in solemn judgment or through her ordinary and universal magisterium are proposed for belief as having been divinely revealed” (De Filius 3; DH 3011).
This places the authority squarely within the episcopate and their unified teaching authority, not merely in the hands of theological consensus.
4. Contemporary Scholars and Faith:
Your critique of contemporary scholars suggests that they do not match the wisdom of the Fathers and Saints, and you imply that one's faith might be shaken by newer interpretations. While it’s essential to respect the Church’s tradition, it’s also important to engage with current theological developments. The Church’s understanding of doctrine has evolved and developed over time through both tradition and reasoned theological inquiry. The contributions of contemporary scholars should not be dismissed outright but evaluated in light of the Church’s enduring teaching and the guidance of the magisterium. Theological exploration has always been part of the Church’s intellectual tradition, and engaging with it does not necessarily indicate a lack of faith but rather a desire to deepen one’s understanding of that faith.
In summary, while the belief in the fewness of the saved has been held by some within the Church, it does not meet the stringent criteria required for infallibility as clarified by Vatican I and Vatican II. The doctrine lacks the necessary unanimous consent of the Fathers and the universal agreement of the episcopate. While tradition is essential, so too is the living magisterium's role in interpreting and defining that tradition for today. Therefore, while the view of the fewness of the saved might be one perspective within the Church, it cannot be imposed on the faithful as a doctrine that must be believed. Instead, Catholics are encouraged to engage with Church teachings thoughtfully and in communion with the ongoing guidance of the magisterium.
I would question your intention for making videos like this. Seems like you are trying to make people despair
Quite presumptuous, when I explicitly lay out my intentions at the beginning of the video.
He might not but this will be the result. Theology is not doxography.
@@andreaboghi5820 Does the consensus of the Church Fathers and Scholastic Theologians mean anything to you?
@@dwong9289 yes in matter of faith. This is not a matter of faith. Faith is what we believe about God not how many respond to this belief.
@@andreaboghi5820 The Church Fathers exegeting Scripture is a matter of faith. Is Matthew 22:14 and 7:13-14 a matter of faith?
Great video Dwong. I'm surprised there's so much juvenile opposition to this teaching
This video is rather discouraging.
Love this channel. Thank you
Another day, another banger let's go. Keep up the good work
WE MISS DWONG'S VOICE!!
“Enter ye in at the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate and strait is the way that leadeth to life and few there are that find it!” (Mt. 7:13-14)
Pope St. Gregory the Great, Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 38, 6th century: “8.…The more the wicked abound, so much the more must we suffer with them in patience; for on the threshing-floor few are the grains carried into the barns, but high are the piles of chaff burned with fire.”
This is an image of destruction (i.e., annihilationism would be more accurate for this depiction of the postmortem state), not eternal conscious torment. The NT is not consistent in its eschatology; however, St Paul believed all were saved, along with many church fathers venerated in the East. Chaff being burned with fire, in the St Gregory the Great quote, is, again, a picture of DESTRUCTION, not ETERNAL TORMENT.
@@kaye_kang1 annihilationism was not taught by any early church teacher, and directly contradicts the obvious meaning of Christ.
Further, it's absurd. God knew from the beginning how you would react to his love. If annihilation were ever on the table, he simply never would have made you in the first place. Because to completely and utterly destroy something he made would be a far greater evil.
You fear hell. And this is good. But the proper response is to submit to Christ, and with the help of his grace to amend your life. Not to preach heresy which will only guarantee you end up burning.
@@marvalice3455 The primary injunction of believing in ECT is not to think. "Don't think, just feel! You'll go to hell if you ask too many questions!"
You did not respond to my point adequately. Chaff in fire burns up into ashes; thus it's an image of destruction. I do not see how annihilationism contradicts the "obvious meaning of Christ."
@@kaye_kang1 >anime pfp
@@kaye_kang1 I see you just ignored my logical argument. We all know why, it's because you cannot actually address it without resorting to even more heresy.
Easter Circle
Do you think Nelson Rockefeller, former Vice President of the United States who allegedly died from a heart attack while having sex would be in hell if that’s true?
Church doesn’t pronounce individuals damned in hell.
Remember, most people aren't Christian. You're already one step in the right direction.
Halvorson Port
Who is narrating?
Two guys from Fiverr. I can get their contact information from my friend Big Steve if you want.
22:40 Can anyone tell me what does it MEAN to "suffer its yoke"?
I know I'm being scrupulous, but what degree of touching your willie is a mortal sin? (Seriously) I am resisting very much so and I will go to confession, if the Lord allows. I may have failed in small degree, but believe I have failed nonetheless. I don't want to die in my sin, please pray for me!
This is not the sort of thing it's helpful to ask random strangers on the internet about since we don't know you or your situation. If you need an answer, speak to someone in your life whose moral formation you trust (friend, family member, etc.). Asking a priest for clarity during Confession is one option. In the meantime, be assured of God's love for you even if you have sinned
And pro tip: stay away from videos like this one if you tend to be scrupulous. Even if they contain true information, they will only serve to make those tendencies worse and promote an anxiety which is "the greatest evil that can befall a soul, except sin" (Francis de Sales, doctor of the Church)
Talk to your priest.
Don't touch your willie for pleasure.
Masturbation is always a mortal sin, except in the cases where one's Will is hindered.
If it's making you feel condemned, you should first confess it, then avoid it.
@@a.ihistory5879we aren't pelagians, no natural work of any kind can merit a supernatural reward, if you are in sin you have thrown all your good works away. If you aren't in sin, you have given over all your good works to Christ.
That you cannot earn heaven is Catholic dogma
BIG STEVE
@@daviddesalvo623 WE LOVE BOG STEVE
@@dwong9289 big Steve fiverr asmr
Few will be saved indeed.
There is no reasonable hope for the contrary.
Christ said:
"The path is narrow, and few there are who find it."
90% positive I’m going to Hell. I love Jesus but I have no faith. I try but having faith in anything in 2024 just feels foolish. I dunno. From where I sit, evil totally won and the gates of Hell triumphed, not only over the Church, but over everything. Including me😢
@@markrobertson6664 you don’t know that. Pray that God saves you brother 🙏
@@dwong9289 thank you! This Sunday I made a good confession and received Our Lord! Thank you for your prayers!
Excellent!
I have a question, where do we get the ideal of mortal vs venial sin?
@@levipatterson1905 1 John 5:16-17
There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.
Dwong, I'm curious as to what your thoughts are on playing a game like GTA 6 (when it releases). On the one hand, it will 100% feature sexual content and other immoral activites, so that could pose a problem. On the other hand, if one exercises prudence and is not indulging in such content and ones intention in playing the game is not impure, would that still be problematic? Obviously, if it is a near occasion for a particular person, he ought to avoid it. But what if it isn't? Would the content itself be problematic, regardless of subjective circumstances?
@@x-popone6817 don’t play it. Violence is okay, but sexual content is not
@@dwong9289 Ok. Pray for me that I will be able to avoid playing it.
@@dwong9289 What counts as sexual content, btw? Is it anyone that is immodestly dressed or does it have to be more explicit, like pornographic?
@@dwong9289So RDR1 and RDR2 are ok? They are set over a century ago when people were obviously far more modest, so sexual content is practically zero.
@@Leopardo_2E if sexual content isn’t there then it would probably be fine.
Good video. But about the topic, there's a observation very important. The most that are lost 99%, are, because sins against chastity. So, this is the virtue more important to observe among anothers, specially humilty.
The "Never stop struggling to be one of the elected saints" chad vs. The "Maybe Hell is empty who knows" virgin.
I would agree except we should not use Virginity as an insult, because Virginity is actually a perfection
@@dwong9289 based
When they say the majority of Catholics are damned, are there any qualifications? Do they simply mean anyone who is baptized a Catholic or anyone who is actively living a Catholic life? Obviously today many Catholics are unfaithful to Church teaching, and so one could say the majority will be damned, but what about Catholics who try to live a Catholic life and actually submit to Church teaching? Will the majority of those also be damned?
They mean adult Catholics. Although this is disputed among the Scholastics.
Just look around and ask yourself how many adult Catholics go to mass every Sunday, don’t contracept, believe in the real presence, etc. Then you realize the fewness of the saved among adult Catholics isn’t because God is harsh, but because people don’t care. If you work with God’s grace and pray the Rosary everyday you will be saved, 100%
@@dwong9289eh I wouldn’t say 100 percent, that’s a presumption. You can pray the rosary every day and be in good graces but still stumble and fall into mortal sin.
i mean St Alphonsus Liguori said that it was a mortal sin to go see an immodest play. the plays back then were nothing compared to 99.9% of movies, videogames, music, etc. today. even something like lotr or harry potter would've been considered meister eckhart tier back in even the 1700s. so taking into account that, and the fact that the overwhelming majority of even "trads" deny that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation, and other dogmas which pertain to said dogma, you can imagine that if there were few saved in the past, these are as the times of Noah were.
@@countryboyred it was a promise given by Mary. it's not that if you pray the Rosary and if you die in a state of mortal sin you'll still be saved - it's that Mary's intercession will be grant you so much grace that you either won't fall into mortal sin, or alternatively if you do, you won't be allowed to die in that state. ofc however, one needs to pray with correct intention.
@@TeamCavalier123 What does he mean by going to see an immodest play? Is it a mortal sin to accidentally stumble across an immodest scene or is he talking about actively seeking out something that specifically is immodest? What about violent video games or movies (even if not sexual)?
dwong, you redpilled those actors
@@mazda7873 real 😭
Mertz Knolls
Will you be doing a video on the Papacy soon? God bless dwong!
Not soon, but hopefully in the far future. It takes a lot of research.
@@dwong9289 I truly appreciate your time and effort. God bless
Why bother then?
@@andreaboghi5820 because if you don’t bother you will surely be damned.
@@dwong9289 If 1 in a million or 100,000 will be saved, unless you are a Saint at level of Saint Padre Pio, despite all your prayers and fast, you won't be saved. At that point You might just enjoy your life, it would be the rational think to do. If those are the numbers we have materially no hope for salvation. Materially, not formally. Also, the Church should raise the bar a lot more, like convent discipline to have a shred of hope of Salvation. The Church would be materially guilty of sending people to Hell. Not Formally, but materially speaking yes. Again, if those number are correct.
@@andreaboghi5820This assumes that trying to be a Saint is not as enjoyable. That it’s more enjoyable to betray your savior and add to his suffering on Calvary. Even if you don’t make it to heaven you can still have a much more preferable life in this earth and in the world to come by following Christ’s teachings.
@@andreaboghi5820 Friend, don't despair. The way to salvation is easy, and it's not as if God has set up snares for everybody in a cruel bid to consign everybody to Hell. On the contrary, if you read up on the history of the Church, He has actually lavished us with a multitude of ways to better assure our salvation: devotionals, scapulars, medals, pardons, indulgences, and consecrations to all kinds of saints-greatest of all, the Blessed Virgin (one of the promises of the Rosary is that if you recite it everyday until death, you will have an entire court of intercessors to advocate for you on the day of your judgement). His mercy is tireless. But beyond all that, the way to salvation is exceptionally simple: go to Mass every Sunday and receive the body of Christ in a state of grace, observe all obligatory days and fasts by the Church, withhold absolutely nothing-and I do mean NOTHING-in your confessions, keep a firm and reliable prayer routine, and just be good to everyone. Read the Holy Scriptures daily for guidance, too, so that you may educate yourself in what is good and what is ill.
And that's it. The multitude aren't damned because they fail to attain to some lofty standard of piety, but because they can barely keep what minimum they are beholden to.
@@Dan-mm7gc do you understand the implications of 1 in 100,000 being saved? Have you done the math?
It do be like that 🫥
Big Steve?!?
@@divineya11 you know him?
Just from Christian’s streams