Impossible Burger?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MarkRome
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MarkRome

Guest
While an Impossible Whopper from Burger King may fulfill the letter of the law…it pretty much tastes exactly like hamburger.

Does eating these modern-day miracles of gastronomical science (meat substitutes) go against the spirit and intent of abstinence from meat and should be avoided?

Has the Church made any recent statements about meat substitutes?
 
Last edited:
MarkRome said:
While an Impossible Whopper from Burger King may fulfill the letter of the law…it pretty much tastes exactly like hamburger.

Does eating these modern-day miracles of gastronomical science (meat substitutes) go against the spirit and intent of abstinence from meat and should be avoided?

Has the Church made any recent statements about meat substitutes?
Click to expand...
No, and the principle in law is that the least burdensome interpretation always prevails.

Since meat substitutes are not meat, they go against neither the spirit nor letter of the law.

They, do, however, go against my sensibilities. There is no way in heck I’m eating fake meat.
 
So this is a new kind of vegetarian burger? As a vegetarian, I eat this sort of thing all the time (the frozen shop bought variety not specifically from Burger King). I have no idea if it tastes like meat at all, but I wouldnt hesitate to eat one on Friday if I wished - it isn’t meat.
 
It does not violate the letter of the law. With having so much in life that we have to give up and renounce to follow Almighty God, I would not stress over meat analogues having “the taste of meat”. If and when the Church wishes to prohibit meat analogues on Fridays, she will surely let us know. The modern world does not exactly beat itself senseless seeking out ways to do more and better penance, so I doubt the Church will take this action any time soon.
 
MarkRome said:
The revulsion to fake meat aside…

The USCCB says this on their website Q&As, “However, moral theologians have traditionally taught that we should abstain from all animal-derived products (except foods such as gelatin, butter, cheese and eggs, which do not have any meat taste).”

Interesting that “meat taste” is a consideration for moral theologians.
http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/liturgical-year/lent/questions-and-answers-about-lent.cfm
Click to expand...
Taken on its face, that statement seems to forbid milk as it is not mentioned as an exception. Milk is much more widely consumed than gelatin, but gelatin was a specified exemption while milk was not. “Meat taste” seems an awfully strange guideline on which to base one’s eternal salvation. And yes, I know cheese is made from milk, but again: a specific reference to milk seems so strange by its absence.
 
I think this falls under the lobster principle. We give up meat since it was expensive and associated with feasting. Nowadays, lobster is a delicacy and is served at feasts. I believe this is one reason the Bishops removed the weekly Friday no meat requirement. Instead, we are required to have another sacrifice each Friday.

The intent is sacrifice. If you eat 100% real beef Whoppers 6 days a week (I don’t recommend that, of course) but then switch to an Impossible Whopper on Friday to fulfill the no meat requirement, it probably isn’t a real sacrifice.
 
Meat is more calorie dense than fish and seafood. We can have lobster if we so chose. The Church doesn’t specify what type of seafood or fish we can have when abstaining.
 
One of the ingredients is beet juice. It’s not meat. It’s fine to have it. It’s not a sin to enjoy our food. God gave us the food, he wants us to enjoy it. That’s part of being thankful.
 
If you were my friend and we were standing in line at Burger King and you ordered the Impossible Whopper, I probably would tell you that’s pretty lame, get the fish. lol Around here the meat substitute burgers are $2 more than beef. Like come on. Veggies more than beef?? Now that’s a penance.
 
MarkRome said:
The revulsion to fake meat aside…

The USCCB says this on their website Q&As, “However, moral theologians have traditionally taught that we should abstain from all animal-derived products (except foods such as gelatin, butter, cheese and eggs, which do not have any meat taste).”

Interesting that “meat taste” is a consideration for moral theologians.
http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/liturgical-year/lent/questions-and-answers-about-lent.cfm
Click to expand...
The quote is specific to animal byproducts. The traditional disciplines no longer bind.

Taste is not a hill you need to die on. Frog legs, for example, are still allowed, and I hear they taste like chicken.

“Carnis”, which is what the authoritative Latin law says, specifically refers only to mammals and fowl. So beef no, pork no, lamb no, chicken no, duck no, goose no, pigeon no, rat no, frog yes, snake yes, crocodile yes, lizard yes, dragon yes. And disgusting fake burgers, yes. Taste is irrelevant.
 
porthos11 said:
There is no way in heck I’m eating fake meat.
Click to expand...
Exactly. They’ve gone to an awful lot of trouble to create something that tastes like meat and charge more for it. I’ll stick with the real stuff.
 
MarkRome said:
Does eating these modern-day miracles of gastronomical science (meat substitutes) go against the spirit and intent of abstinence from meat and should be avoided?
Click to expand...
Nope. Not in the slightest. The rule is to avoid meat, and this is clearly not meat.
MarkRome said:
Has the Church made any recent statements about meat substitutes?
Click to expand...
The Church doesn’t have to make a statement about something that is not even remotely ambiguous. Not meat means not meat. Period. There’s really nothing to make a statement about beyond that. I can’t imagine what kind of “statement” you would expect to find.

Your eagerly searching for an answer where no legitimate question exists. Don’t waste your time.
 
Last edited:
You are absolutely right. You aren’t violating the letter of the law. That’s established.
 
That’s right. You are free to have a lobster feast if you desire.
 
You guys are severely overthinking this.

The fasting and abstinence rules are minimum requirements. Practice the strictest fast you can, and ease back if necessary.

Barring any health issues, nobody should be doing the bare minimum.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top