This statement in Matthew and other places has perplexed me for a long time and have never been able to find a solid explanation of what it means. Does it have any bearing on Christian Universalism?
Yes.
It denies Universality and divides souls into those that are lost to hell and the few on the narrow path to heaven that scriptures speak of.
Hell negates any thinking of Universality.
Christians do not realize that hell and non-Universality makes Yahweh look like a loser who does not know how to create for the best possible end.
Regards
DL
Actually it makes much sense, as Christ was talking about those who were about to go through a very tough time. It does not speak of universalism at all (though I do not necessarily like that term), it does denote what God was going to do with the stubborn Israelites in the final days. (look at Isaiah and Romans) Has nothing to do with us as post Christ children. 
We should not call YHWY a looser. 
People are just confused… We* all are *at some point. 
The statement only works contextually with the parable, as a hugely ironic warning – I even regard it as one of Jesus’ test-sayings, where if His followers try to make it come out in special favor of themselves they reveal themselves as being among those He was warning against.
In both versions of the parable (although only GosMatt has the confusing moral), everyone is called, and many turn out just fine (they’re even compelled to turn out just fine). Only a relative few are smacked down: the murderously insulting and rebellious chief servants of the king, and the ungrateful guest who insultingly refused to wear the festival clothes implicitly provided by the host. (Strictly speaking in a real war the citizens of the cities could and probably would have been slain, but we can presume they’re given a chance to show loyalty to their rightful king or to the rebellious chief servants. The king’s a pretty generous and patient guy, until it’s time to not be nice.)
If this parable (in its two forms) was all we had to go on, things might look hopeless for the chosen few punished in the parable; but it would still be a radically subversive story completely antithetical to an idea of only a few elites being saved while the grubby mass are extinguished. Jesus might as well have ended it with the usual saying (in variations) of “the last will be first and the first will be last”.
(By the same token, I’m doubtful it fits very well as a warning of Jerusalem’s coming destruction, although there are certainly suggestions of that, too.)
At first, I thought it was a prophesy regarding telemarketers. You know. The telemarketer calls many people - but few choose them. But that can’t be the case - or is it 
Here’s the take of the Protestant site Got Questions, for better or for worse:
What does “Many are called but few are chosen” in Matthew 22:14 mean?
Yeah, I notice their pretty standard interpretation (in a Calv variation) subtly jumps right around the details of the story that even they recognize: many, not few, are in fact saved (analogically speaking) in the parable!
I agree that Yahweh does not head a Universalist Church.
A real and worthy God would as he would recognize the perfection of his works.
Deuteronomy 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect:
Since Yahweh is not a Universalist, to me, that proves that he is not a real god at all.
The Jews likely thought the same way which is why they strove both with and against him.
Regards
DL
Compare your “everyone is called, and many turn out just fine (they’re even compelled to turn out just fine). Only a relative few are smacked down:” --------- with,
Matthew 22:14 "For many are invited, but few are chosen
Regards
DL
So basically, those who accept substitutionary atonement as moral and good will get to heaven.
I think substitutionary atonement, the punishing of the innocent instead of the guilty is quite immoral and all the courts of the land that I know of agree that justice demand the punishing of the guilty and not of the innocent.
Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, — so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, — is immoral.
Christians often say that to shed their responsibilities onto their scapegoat Jesus is moral.
What do you think?
Regards
DL
In that parable, yes that’s obviously the case. I doubt that’s the key point, though.
I agree with Gnostic Bishop on this. I definitely disagree with the quote that he quoted… I am not sure if Randy wrote that or copied and pasted it from another site, but that is one example of perverted Justice/Fairness
I already did; I was comparing it in the quote you quoted. But since you’ve disregarded my comparison from the outset, there is an end to the non-discussion.
Randy quoted it from another site.
Thanks.
It does seem as a given that justice would punish the guilty and not the innocent, — yet I have a bitch of a time convincing Christians that the policy of substitutionary atonement is satanic.
Christians do not seem to care about justice and are just focused on their get into heaven free card and screw everyone else who have better morals and would reject the punishment of the innocent instead of the guilty.
Regards
DL
And I also added the words, " for better or for worse". 
Actually, the Protestant site Got Questions, is usually very good - for general Biblical interpretations. But if there is a passage or passages dealing with “hell” or the “common notion of Hell”, they will follow the “status Quo”. 
Thanks for the insight. After looking at the parables in context and in more detail, I see how it’s connected to the meaning of “the first shall be last…” and I’m inclined to think that the called/invited are all of humanity, and the chosen are fewer than we would like to believe (as I wonder if the chosen in this context and maybe with more far-reaching implications, are only those no different than all who are invited, except God chooses them for a special task or function at a specific time to benefit all, i.e. Israel to be a messenger to the world and the apostles to establish the church) So, my line of thinking on the subject has gone like this, that all who are called and invited will eventually become believers, but the chosen are reserved for a special function in God’ economy of things. I think a possible Calvinist view of Matt 22:14 and Calvinism in general paints a perverted and elitist view of God’s love nature and how He is dealing with mankind, and these parables seem to address that very wrong attitude in the heart. I have a foggy vision of how EU can bring much of Arminianism and Calvinism together and bridge the divide. Is anyone familiar with any writings where the chosen/elect are seen in scripture as a specific group within Christianity, and where not all Christians are considered elect, or am I bordering on heresy? Is it possible that the term elect and those chosen doesn’t have to apply to all believers throughout history?
That depends on how far various epistle (and Gospel) language is taken in acknowledging that some people may be real Christians for a while and yet die back in overt rebellion against God. I don’t think there’s any language about the “elect” getting into that trouble; some language verges on it, but could be regarded as referring to Christians not of the elect or as discussing a hypothetical topic for the sake of emphasizing something else. (For example, the final Antichrist shall do miraculous signs which would deceive, if possible, the elect themselves – I think that’s from RevJohn, not one of Paul’s epistles – doesn’t seem to be saying any of the elect will definitely be deceived into taking the mark and following the Antichrist, only that the theoretical idea of this happening illustrates, by a rhetorical emphasis, how convincing the Antichrist will be in his works.)