My parish has a moratorium on all activities during Lent, not related to Lent. Even raffle ticket sales are not allowed. I think it speaks volumes to the parishoners when the whole parish changes character for six weeks.
I agree that much of the “sacrificial nature” of lent has been lost. It seems that since VAT II the emphasis has been a much more “positive” and “triumphant” attitude than existed in the Pre-Vat II Church which seemed much more “penitential”. Of course, like so many things from VAT II, a good idea has been taken too far. Hopefully the trend back toward conservatism will be able to strike a balance.
Amen . . . it may take just a bit more work to check into the ingredients of processed foods . . . but then . . . to be sure our fast is pleasing to our . . . Wonderful Lord . . . it’s definitely worth it . . . I kind of like to compare these little spiritual disciplines to the simple technique of using a computer successfully . . . if you don’t hit the correct keys . . . you won’t get the desired result . . . if you do hit the correct keys . . . you will get the desired result . . . *it’s just a little easy lesson of obedience equals success . . . and a strengthening of spiritual muscles . . . *An interesting letter he received. I have a question for any culinary genius out there. The higher the fat content, the more the broth. 5% fat makes almost no broth. So, does the broth come from the muscle part of the meat, or from the fat?
The very leanest of meats make the most nutritious broths . . . the heathy nutrition in the broth comes from the meat . . . never the fat . . . which should be skimmed off . . . *and you need to be particularly careful to skim off the fat when using a meat broth for someone who is ill and needs strengthening nutritious meat in it’s easy to digest broth form *. . . meat broth is a wonderful nutritional food and visibly very strengthening when given to those who are sick . . . doctors frequently prescribe nutritious meat broth as an essential part of a diet for those quite ill . . .Those who say that the 1983 Code of Canon Law supercedes and nullifies the 1917 Code of Canon Law when the 1917 Code expressly required an exercise of a specific discipline . . . and the 1983 Code is SILENT about the issue . . . . enter into a problematic area in regard to the two Canon Law Codes . . .
If the 1983 Code did not expressly revoke the 1917 Code of Canon Law statement about meat broth/stock being listed as forbidden . . . then it is still in force . . . this is the Holy See’s careful protection of **immemorial customs **of our Apostolic Holy Roman Catholic Church . . . and by the above underlined statement of protection of the earlier 1917 Code . . . the Church and the faithful are carefully restrained and cannot throw away **immemorial customs **at will, just because the culture wants to push them into disuse.
You note first on the list, we see the 1917 CCL is nullified.
I believe this is an obedience issue, don’t you? God never said we couldn’t eat meat on Fridays during Lent. The Church did. The sin we’re committing is one of defiance to the Church, not to the scales. If we intend to defy the Church, the sin has been committed whether we indulge in 10 oz of steak, 1 oz of steak, or no steak at all.
Not a “culinary genius” here, but on (admittedly) rare occasions I prepare my own stock (or broth – as far as I’m concerned, they’re the same thing). In doing so I use bones that are not stripped clean. The bones, and consequently whatever meat is still on them, are first roasted, which cooks the meat and concentrates the flavor. One thing that I always do is remove as much solid fat as possible before roasting: I’m looking for roasted bones, not roasted fat. (When the stock is done, I remove the bones and strip whatever meat is there before discarding them. The meat may be added back to the stock or not, depending. Then, of course, I skim any obvious pools of fat.) Still, contrary to what another posted suggested, I would never even think to make a stock using only the leanest meat. A certain amount of fat is needed to carry the flavor. (Plus, any bits of meat in such stock would be so dry and tasteless as to be almost inedible.) Over the years, I’ve come to realize that the bones are the key, both to flavor and minimal grease. The meat on the bones, plus any marrow there may be, have enough internal fat to do the job.
Well, first some chefs carefully distinguish broth from stock. A broth is more inclined to have been made with more meat in the pot. For either, you put bones with some meat on them, plus things like chicken feet, wing tips, skin, etc. into the pot. You cover it with water and simmer (best not to boil) for a long time. Then you discard all the solids. Also you skim off a type of scum that floats to the top (has blood in it, stuff like that). Finely straining it always happens, unless it is a home cook who instead lets it settle and discards the bottom portion. Also, the fat is mostly removed. It is actually possible to “clarify” it in a special way that will remove the gelatin from it, but this is rarely done except by the sort of die-hard foodie who will buy a $1000 special piece of equipment to hard boil an egg just so. (method called sous vide if you want to google the insanity)
I understand all that you are saying, but disobedience is not an issue at all if one abstains from meat* and* observes a time of penance during Lent. Yes, one ounce and ten ounces are the same, but zero ounces when one does not intend to disobey the Church, yet still observes a proper Lent is not the same. We do not eat meat. Got it. Ramen noodles are very pennitential (IMO) and any animal molecules in them do not qualify as meat.
I’ll agree with that to a certain extent. Penance is required on all Fridays and we can use whatever we feel is a significant penance on the non-Lenten Fridays. However, during Lenten Fridays, we must specifically abstain from meat, whether we’re normally vegetarian, fish-only-all-the-time, or strict carnivores. It is hoped that this is penance enough but then we may want to do more.
:clapping:Legalism.
) be strictly obedient…but is the food you consume that day showing ANY kind of sacrafice??? Unless of course you hate lobster?If you had just continued to read further in the document you would have found listed exceptions:
The 1983 Code did NOT expressly revoke the 1917 Code of Canon Law statement about meat broth/stock being listed as forbidden . . . which is both centenary and has been an immemorial custom for centuries . . . therefore it is still in force as an immemorial custom . . . since the 1983 Code of Law is completely silent on this point . . . and never addresses it . . . it stands as a centuries old immemorial custom of the Church . . . and in all likelyhood the reason it was never specifically dealt with in the 1983 Canon of Law is because meat broth/stock had been defined and considered for centuries prior to 1983 as a “meat” product . . . trying to manuver around this reality by the rationalization that the new Code is completely SILENT on this point . . . *which Code is less than 30 years old *. . . when this Lenten practice of abstaining from meat broth/stock is centuries old . . . to my mind at least . . . just doesn’t make much sense . . .
There are several centuries old immemorial customs which are not dealt with in the 1983 Code of Canon Law . . . which nevertheless are practiced completely in good faith by the Catholic Christian faithful . . .
Chicken flavored ramen doesn’t taste like meat to me. It tastes like msg (the flavor of unami). From a foodie standpoint, ramen is penitential, clearly.
Hilarious!I agree that what will seem a penance to one will seem like heaven to another.While grilled scampi and salmon are not.
Salmon is a penance if you hate salmon. Someone out there probably likes ramen. :whacky:I did read that part. No exceptions are “listed”. There is a description only. And yes, the 1917 Code of Canon Laws statement was revoked, along with every other word, punctuation mark and inuendo contained therein, as per your definition of “abrogated.” That sentence contained no exceptions exempting any part of the 1917 Code from revocation.