Does Capybara Meat Break The Lenten Abstinence?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Insomniac
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Joe_Kelley said:
It appears to me that meat means warm blooded creatures. Incidentall,m I think this includes whales and dolphins. I
Click to expand...
In Alaska, cetaceans (whales, dolphins, porpoises) and pinnipeds (Seals,Walruses) generally do not break fast, since they are the primary protein for certain tribes.

On the other hand, some of the Eastern Catholic churches are far more strict; The Russian Catholics retain the “No meat, milk, nor eggs on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays of fasts” interpreting meat as anything with a spinal column as their Russian Orthodox brethren… thus barring also fish, etc.
 
Rocky I hope that anybody who is writing or editing a dictionary understands the importance of the proper use of the proper word. Or it may call into question the validity of the whole dictionary - as I believe it has. And thank goodness I don’t edit or write dictionaries.
 
thistle said:
From the Catholic Dictionary:

MEAT. The flesh of animals and birds eaten by human beings, as understood in Church law. Its prohibition on days of abstinence and fast has a spiritual value, going back to the Old Testament and practiced since apostolic times. “The law of abstinence forbids the use of meat, but not of eggs, the products of milk or condiments made of animal fat” (Pope Paul VI, Paenitemini, Norm III, 1).
Click to expand...
Perhaps someone will pull up the Latin.

That key phrase “as understood in Church law” is important.

A living creature is defined as “meat” (carne, I believe) for purposes of fasting in the Latin Church because it is understood to be meat by Latin Church law ***not ***because it is classified as such by scientists or “common sense”. Some aquatic and semi-aquatic animals have been classified as “fish” by Church law even though it may not make scientific sense to have done so.

Anyone is entitled to be more strict with personal observance but no one should be scrupulous on behalf of another who choses to take Church law at its face value.
 
LDNCatholic said:
I think it is because they are semi aquatic (sort of) I believe the same allowance was made for Beavers (or beaver tails anyway) and I’m sure it also counts for frogs.
Click to expand...
Here in Michigan, beaver and otter are permitted. It goes back to the days of the first Jesuit missionaries. The local Indian word for ‘fish’ included aquatic animals. Since Michigan was then under the Diocese of Montreal, permission was granted for the converted Indians to eat beaver and otter in addition to fish, since it was in keeping with their understanding of the word.

That indult was again granted when Michigan became it’s own diocese (well Detroit did) and hasn’t been revoked.
 
Brendan said:
Here in Michigan, beaver and otter are permitted. It goes back to the days of the first Jesuit missionaries. The local Indian word for ‘fish’ included aquatic animals. Since Michigan was then under the Diocese of Montreal, permission was granted for the converted Indians to eat beaver and otter in addition to fish, since it was in keeping with their understanding of the word.

That indult was again granted when Michigan became it’s own diocese (well Detroit did) and hasn’t been revoked.
Click to expand...
This could be wrong, but I recall hearing many years ago that a similar indult existed in Argentina (perhaps Uruguay also) regarding, of all things, beef. It seems to have had to do with the fact that beef was so common it was actually the food of the poor there. I’ve no idea if this is really true or, if so, if it still exists. Perhaps we have an Argentino in the house who could help clarify?
 
My dear Orthodox friends can’t have fish on fast days, because that is flesh, but they can have a sumptuous feast of shrimp and lobster, because technically those have been classified by their Church as “bugs.”

Capybaras are essentially large guinea pigs, and I’m told they breed as prolifically, so they would be a good source of cheap, self-replicating protein, just as fish would be in the middle East.
 
EvelynEVF said:
My dear Orthodox friends can’t have fish on fast days, because that is flesh, but they can have a sumptuous feast of shrimp and lobster, because technically those have been classified by their Church as “bugs.”
Click to expand...
Well they certainly are closer to insects than to fish.
 
thistle said:
Its pretty clear that the Church use of animal means warmed blooded.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I think that marine mammals as noted above would not qualify as carne in the Latin understanding. And I suspect that snake and lizard meat would.
40.png
thistle:
Who eats dolphins?
Click to expand...
From Wikipedia,
In some parts of the world such as Taiji in Japan and the Faroe Islands, dolphins are traditionally considered as food, and killed in harpoon or drive hunts.
Click to expand...
They even have a picture of 40 or 50 dolphin laid out after a hunt in the Faeroe Islands.
 
While dolphins are not on the menu in Alaska, narwhales, orca, and beluga whales all are… and Orca are technically the largest dolphins, not true whales.

Tasty, too.
 
Only in the villages. But fresh whale is a treat.

(Walrus isn’t, IMO…)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top