/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Mostly, yes. Save for some things in the last episode.

>>532168

But he was a total antithesis of Francis. Why do you think so?

I loved the series. I also liked the fact that the miracles he supposedly comitted were confirmed. The series didn't seem to have an anti-Christian bias.

Either that or it was trying to show a 'bad traditionalist pope' so much that everyone actually liked him.

The show was ass. Waste of time, waste of money.

I realized in the middle of the season finale that I wasn't even enjoying it. Stoped watching and I'm not even curious about the last half of the episode.

Too much manufactured drama, too many loose ends left untied only for misdirection, tawdry storylines out of a harlequin paperback. False depth, no sense of moral weight to anything. Just thoroughly asinine all around.

Was Lenny a good pope? Who gives a shit.

You guys watch television?

>>532276

Seems like an alright show. But I don't have cable.

>>532283

>>532273

>What is streaming

>>532283

>>532273

>What is streaming>>532273

>watching TalmudVision

As a newb Catholic I really enjoyed it, I could have done without the ubiquitous HBO pleb-tier nudity, but it was shot beautifully and really stayed with me.

>>536265

>I could have done without the ubiquitous HBO pleb-tier nudity

My one critique of the show.

Personally I found the last couple of speeches in the last couple of episodes quite moving. Especially the one in Africa.

>>532296

>pipe

>not a cigar

>>532140

Absolutely. he was shrewd to all the things the Church sorely needed. He was shown to have a big heart, a sincere faith and at times sincere doubts. He was truly was a Saint.

Was genuinely moved throughout the series. The sex stuff was a tad tasteless, as was the spirit cooking name drop.

Pros

>Pope St Piux XIII

>No, seriously

>BTFOs fag clergy, paedophile priests, corrupt and complacent clergy, restores TLM, literally in communion with the Holy Spirit, throws up barriers to entry to priesthood so not just any degenerate can get in, performs miracles, tells lukewarms to get lost, refuses to engage with corrupt African warlord, abortion is an excommunicable offence, demands actual penances be performed by people in confession, cucks Italian President to doing his will

>Gorgeously shot

>Fantastic soundtrack (including based Arvo Paert)

Cons

>Constant mummy-daddy bs

>pornography and nudity

>dramatic tension nowhere

>odd theology and outright liberties taken

>"Homosexuality is about love, paedophilia is about agression"

>weird soap-opera type dialogue at times (though I will give this a pass since it was written by an Italian)

Summation - just watch the clips on YT, since you really aren't missing a great deal else besides these.

>>536536

>>536294

>>536550

>All this boo-hoo about nudity

There was literally nothing wrong with the nudity in TYP

>>536569

>there is literally nothing wrong with a MMF threesome

>>536572

There isn't, as it is not real.

>>536573

Pornography is simulated sex for the purpose of arousal. This makes viewing it (especially in TYP) a sin.

>>536574

Did you just realize that you dropped that Its not sinful if you're not aroused

>>536575

No, the "purpose" of arousal is in the makers' hands. This is why it is included, to titillate viewers.

It doesn't matter if you yourself are aroused, because if you consent to watching it regardless, you also commit a sin.

If you witness a crime, but are neither moved to intervene or report it, you also commit a sin.

>>536576

Did you just realize that you just dropped that its not sinful if its not meant to arouse?

>>536578

Do you realise you keep sidestepping the point to justify your sin?

If you can point out porn that's not meant to arouse then be my guest.

The bottom line is that rather than imply or show in some more slight way the fact that the Cardinal was having an affair with the drug lord's wife (and some twink), Sorrentino decided to go down the route of crass "show don't tell" because it keeps asses on seats. You cannot justify this inclusion.

>>536580

Do you realize that, by moving the goalposts, and now posting this, you have admitted you have nothing of value?

You can not prove I was aroused(And I was not when I saw the scene), you can not prove the show was made that way to arouse.

>crass "show don't tell"

Well, that's just sad.

Look, point to a bible verse or something that supports yourself, instead of this, for THIS is not going anywhere. I am not even lightly persuaded, just as I am not persuaded when a christian here points to anything that I support(2nd amendment or whatever) and asks: "IS IT IDOLATRY???" or whatever useless thing they have, its a useless crusade on something because it might be wrong.

>But I would be right most of the time if I said someone watching sex was being sinful! What the heck

Does your pride stop you form admitting you are wrong this time?

>>536584

>Do you realize that, by moving the goalposts, and now posting this, you have admitted you have nothing of value?

I haven't. The purpose of arousal is in the hands of the purveyor. The arousal itself is in the hands/eyes/pants of the viewer. It's like a toxin. It's made to destroy, but I don't have to drink a bottle of it just to make sure of it.

This is a fairly neat relationship, and your attempts to confuse this only make you look like you are lying to yourself to continue in sin.

>You can not prove I was aroused(And I was not when I saw the scene), you can not prove the show was made that way to arouse.

Irrelevant. In fact I don't care. If you watched it without a problem, then you might have bigger problems to worry about.

>Look, point to a bible verse or something that supports yourself, instead of this, for THIS is not going anywhere.

Just going to the Gospel of St Matthew for a start:

>5:28 But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.

>5:29 And if thy right eye scandalize thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee. For it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body be cast into hell.

<Yeah, but you're only looking, it can't hur-

>6:22 The light of thy body is thy eye. If thy eye be single, thy whole body shall be lightsome.

>6:23 But if thy eye be evil thy whole body shall be darksome. If then the light that is in thee, be darkness: the darkness itself how great shall it be!

<But that's not right, surely sometimes it's ok to-

>5:19 He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

>Does your pride stop you form admitting you are wrong this time?

Nope, does yours though? It must be pretty special to know more than the Lord on this issue. I guess He must be wrong.

>>536585

>I haven't.

Re-reading your posts, you haven't moved the goalposts fine and fair.

Which is a shame because I feel like you're going to ask to agree to disagree or just agree that you're right sometime soon

>and your attempts to confuse this only make you look like you are lying to yourself to continue in sin.

Sigmund Freud was obviously wrong on his attempts to Psychoanalyze people, just as your similar attempts are wrong right now.

>>5:28 But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.

I thought that lust was "Irrelevant" just now?

The next set of verses go along with those two, and the one bellow them is just in case I was going to respond with something predictable.

>to know more than the Lord

Okay, I am going to entertain your notion. Do you believe that the Holy Spirit is with you as you write down your posts?

>>536591

>Which is a shame because I feel like you're going to ask to agree to disagree or just agree that you're right sometime soon

We'll keep going if you like. I'm in no hurry to stop.

>Sigmund Freud was obviously wrong on his attempts to Psychoanalyze people, just as your similar attempts are wrong right now.

Well, I hope that you will forgive my presumption, it's just usually that when people are so adamant about defending vulgarity they have a dog in the fight too.

Mea culpa ;_;

>The next set of verses go along with those two, and the one bellow them is just in case I was going to respond with something predictable.

No the point was to frame it to show that it's not just a case of "well, I looked at this porn, but I'm not aroused. Guess I am ok now!" The point is, as our Lord elaborates, that if you only dwell on impure things they will corrupt you. How can you be perfect if you are still attached to wicked things?

Also as Psalm 17 states:

>17:26 With the holy, thou wilt be holy; and with the innocent man thou wilt be innocent.

>17:27 And with the elect thou wilt be elect: and with the perverse thou wilt be perverted.

Basically, spiritually, you "are what you eat"

>Okay, I am going to entertain your notion. Do you believe that the Holy Spirit is with you as you write down your posts?

No, because for my sins I am in a state of mortal sin, and haven't confessed yet. Then again, this is all pretty black and white in the catechism, Tradition, the Fathers and so forth.

>>536574

>Pornography is simulated sex for the purpose of arousal.

>a sin.

What if the viewer doesn't get aroused ?

>>536580

>route of crass "show don't tell" because it keeps asses on seats

You're clearly ignorant of what you're nagging about. Also, Sorrentino is a genius

>>536597

See >>536585, >>536596

>>536599

>You're clearly ignorant of what you're nagging about.

OK. Enlighten me what it's all about then.

I've only seen this and La Grande Bellezza, which was admittedly a beautiful movie, but still quite sinful.

>>536596

>No, because for my sins I am in a state of mortal sin, and haven't confessed yet.

Well, I did not expect this turn.

>;_;

Stop posting anytime.

Now back into the argument.

>How can you be perfect if you are still attached to wicked things?

If someone describes someone else's sin, has he sinned with his mouth?

If I ear someone's else idolatry, are my ears being corrupted? (If so, how can I even fight evil if I must flee form it?)

I'd also ask if a author that paints a sin is sinning, but that's just asking you to directly concede your point.

>Psalm 17:27

>…26It is also not good to fine the righteous, Nor to strike the noble for their uprightness. 27He who restrains his words has knowledge, And he who has a cool spirit is a man of understanding. 28Even a fool, when he keeps silent, is considered wise; When he closes his lips, he is considered prudent.…

Did you just outright lie to me

Okay no nevermind, you just numbered it incorrectly, it's Psalm 18:26. I would be inclined to believe your interpretation but you're in the state of mortal sin(and less importantly you put up the wrong numbers for the verse).

>>536597

We've basically speeded through that very discussion just now didn't we.

>>536602

>If someone describes someone else's sin, has he sinned with his mouth?

Well that depends why he's doing it which is another topic entirely. Is he doing it to shame or detract that person? Is he gossiping? Who is he telling it to? Is it to a child of one of his own accomplices? Or is he just passively describing it? This statement as it is gives no clue to this. It can also have another less obvious but more sinister meaning, such as gaining, as you suspect, a personal gratification from it by relaying the sin in lurid detail.

>If I ear someone's else idolatry, are my ears being corrupted? (If so, how can I even fight evil if I must flee form it?)

I take your point but you're kind of straying. We are not asked expected to never encounter sin. If that is the case then Christ Himself is guilty of having heard blasphemy, despite believing none of it. The point is simply that it comes down to a choice. You can't avoid what you see or hear most of the time. You can choose how to react to it, by going along with it and enjoying it, or refuting it, or even just removing yourself from the occasion of it. This is also different from actually seeking out compromising situations.

>I'd also ask if a author that paints a sin is sinning, but that's just asking you to directly concede your point.

Again, it depends on the matter. For instance, Carravaggio depicting the brutal murder of Holofernes cannot in any way be said to have committed the murder himself. A man who paints out Lord crucified cannot be accused of having literally hammered the nails into His hands and feet. If however someone is so fixed on violence in their work then, though they may not be sinning, they may need some kind of direction. Then again there is a readily acknowledged gulf between the depiction of violence and the depiction of sex. We aren't inspired to violence and wrath in the same way we are lured into lust.

>Okay no nevermind, you just numbered it incorrectly, it's Psalm 18:26. I would be inclined to believe your interpretation but you're in the state of mortal sin(and less importantly you put up the wrong numbers for the verse).

Actually I'm using the Douay-Rheims bible, which uses the older way of counting the Psalms from the Septuagint, so for the most part the psalms are one out of sync with the average prot or modern Catholic version.

>>536608

Well this argument is basically going down to, "WHY did the author depict those three has having a threesome?"

I'm just going to ask, aren't those three people sinners inside the very series?

>>536609

>"WHY did the author depict those three has having a threesome?"

Crudely, "Sex sells". Plus it was, in my view lazy shorthand for expositing on the fact that this cardinal was having an affair. There was no build up to the scene, no implication anywhere else prior to this, neither was there any real motivation to it, just *boom*, threesome.

>I'm just going to ask, aren't those three people sinners inside the very series?

Well, yeah, but I thought that that was a given.

>>532276

wtf I love the pope now

>>536618

I mostly didn’t see the need for man-ass in the first ep, but the threesome could have also been done more tastefully. It could have been implied. I’m not a dolt, nor am I in need of the kind of cheap, blasé American cheese titilation that HBO is famous for randomly dropping into shows. Classic films are really good at letting the viewer fill in the blanks without resorting to “See, they’re all having sex, watch them have sex, did you get that they are all having sex? Cause they are all having sexual right now.” I just thought it was a cheap, tinny note in an otherwise decent composition.

>>536687

Yeah the whole HBO softcore sex thing really rubs me the wrong way, and it did even before I was a Christian. Back then I thought “If I wanted to fap, I’d watch porn, so why do I need this lame sex scene taking up valuable time?”. Now of course my reaction is considerably more annoyed. It’s all about normalising watching people have sex.

This show is just made to promote the anti christ declaring himself popeGod king, don't watch dumb shit like this

>>532275

i don't have a TV, only thing I used to watch was forged in fire on my parents TV

>>536742

yeah dude, you and I are forever cursed because we saw people naked…

This verse is about respect for their father, while one saw him naked and ran to tell the others as to make fun of him, the others as a sign of respect and knowing he was naked averted their gaze and covered his body.

Now imagine if Ham saw his father naked and instead of running to tell he stayed and covered his father, do you think he would still be cursed even though he saw him naked?

>>536576

Now show me an actual theological reasoning for this - a quote from CCC, which is the only argument I have seen people make, doesn't count, since CCC is supposed to be a succinct work, not a comprehensive explanation, and not explaining subtle and rare cases (which, when seen by a lustful person, could be very easily misinterpreted) is expected of this kind of book.

Watching pornography due to lust is obviously evil, since lust is evil.

Watching pornography for some other reason, when there is a real possibility you will lust, is likewise evil, since you are putting yourself in danger of sin without a sufficient reason to do so.

But if you are certain you won't sin, where's the evil?

Instead of name-calling, please provide actual proof of why you believe I'm wrong.

>>532140

No. He forced a priest to break the seal of confession which is absolutely horrible and would probably excommunicate him. He made abortion unforgivable which he has absolutely no authority to do and goes against Christ's teachings. Also what the hell was up with Spencer arguing about ensoulment? He accused Pius of spreading outdated theology in the beginning of the series then he argued for ensoulment later, which is the most outdated theology one can come up with.

He had some based lines and the show was great, but come on.

>>536863

>the show was great

Great as in well-made and entertaining, btw. Not as in an accurate or faithful depiction of Catholic teaching or the Vatican hopefully.

>>536754

>yeah dude, you and I are forever cursed because we saw people naked…

I think you got the wrong idea of this post…

>This verse is about respect for their father, while one saw him naked and ran to tell the others as to make fun of him, the others as a sign of respect and knowing he was naked averted their gaze and covered his body.

Now imagine if Ham saw his father naked and instead of running to tell he stayed and covered his father, do you think he would still be cursed even though he saw him naked?

Thanks for the explanation. That verse always tilted me sideways

>>536866

I read that spoiler as Popefully. I still got a good chuckle out of it.

I don't understand the ending, does Lenny go soft?

is this the end of his papacy?