Monday, March 18, 2024

Throne of David, contrary to both Bro. Peter Dimond and Trent Horn

Trent Horn Is Wrong About The Throne Of David & Sedevacantism | 3 Dec. 2022

0:52 Have you considered the previous verses pointing to the idea that the advent of Christ is the terminus a quo this promise begins to take effect?

15 In those days, and at that time, I will make the bud of justice to spring forth unto David, and he shall do judgment and justice in the earth. 16 In those days shall Juda be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell securely: and this is the name that they shall call him, The Lord our just one.

Not stating Bergoglio is a perpetual successor, more like Pope Michael II is.

2:09 I would argue that the sacrifice of Christ is spoken of in OT terms in Jeremias.

In Malachy 1:11 the word oblation: For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts.

This clearly refers to the eucharistic sacrifice, but "sacrifice" and "oblation" are stated in terms reminiscent of the OT, since the Hebrew interlinear actually has Minha, grain offering. I consider the most correct English transliteration would be Minha or Minkha, in English Mincha would suggest another pronunciation, but in German that one is correct.

So, there are other sacrifices than the grain offering that are also OT types of Christ's sacrifice. Jeremias 33:18 is not conditional, it is about Christ.

2:26 For a few decades, we do not need Jeremias 33, we have the 39 years of more than one pope which some have interpreted as no real pope, and hence in the Council of 1869-70, some fathers opined that even forty years would not break the perpetuity. From Pius XII losing papacy on dying, 1958, to election of Michael I, 32 years. If Pius XII lost papacy by Humani Generis (non-condemnation of evolutionary origin of Adam), it would be 40 years.

4:38 2 Chron 13:5 says lə·‘ō·w·lām, which means there will be no end to it, but does not deny temporary interruption.
Jeremias 33:17 has lō-yikkareth, which denies interruption.

So, neither promises "perpetuos successores" during the OT, since Chronicles is about lack of end, and since Jeremias only begins with Christ.

5:11 St. Thomas agrees with me.

He speaks of a restoration, fulfilled in Christ, meaning, Jeremias 33:17 does not start to take place before the NT era.

6:49 Jeremias 33:20—21 fulfilled in Matthew 28:20.

The New Covenant is unbreakable.

Which obviously is a good reason for there being a Pope (even if he have but few faithful) at the Second coming, as Pope Michael I considered probable.

7:27 Noting, neither St. Thomas, nor Jeremias, nor the Psalmist state that the everlasting covenant with King David started prior to Jesus.

The gap in the end of the OC does not fall within the promise in any of the versions, hagiographical or commentarial.

8:23 2 Kings 7:16, Isaias 22:20—22 also do not promise that the uninterrupted rule of King David or of Heliacim, figure of Peter, begins during the OT era.

3 Kings 2:45, same story. God is speaking "verba de futuro" and not specifying when that future begins.

8:46, the quote from Ps 88:

I have made a covenant with my elect: I have sworn to David my servant
Disposui testamentum electis meis; juravi David, servo meo

The promise is certainly already in the past, when God spoke to David.

Thy seed will I settle for ever. And I will build up thy throne unto generation and generation.
usque in aeternum praeparabo semen tuum, et aedificabo in generationem et generationem sedem tuam.

But its execution begins some time in the future, i e with the First Coming of Christ.

10:38 Did St. Robert explicitly state that the perpetuity started during the OT?

11:20 A Babylonian captivity need not involve absence of Davidic King / Pope, we see Manasseh ruling during the beginning of the Babylonian captivity.

Therefore, the Babylonian captivity of the end times would probably have started prior to the sedevacancy.

Now, I'd place the beginning of this horror in the archdiocese of Paris allowing in 1920 a Jesuit to make an encyclopedian entry about the Hexaëmeron, in which he distances himself from:

  • literal six days literally at the beginning of the world
  • literal six days after a gap and
  • six long periods

and promotes instead sth which is closely related to the "framework theory" which a Calvinist is credited with in 1924 ...

In 1947, they were already petitioning Pius XII "pretty please, can we say Adam had evolutionary origins, for sure?" and got a diplomatic no, and Humani Generis was revisiting that affair, unfortunately once again without condemning this position, basically all versions of which land in some kind of heresy.

No comments: