Smoothies and Milkshakes on Good Friday

[Bookcat]

Milk is generally considered food, so it is to be consumed with a meal. .

No -* milk* is I would say a “drink”.

A milkshake or soothie though I would consider on the “food side” for they are taking whole fruit or icecream and consuming them.

 

[babochka]

No -* milk* is I would say a “drink”.

What is your basis for this opinion?

Perhaps it is true from a cultural point of view, but from a medical/nutritional point of view, this is not the case.

From Mosby’s Dictionary of Medicine: "Milk is a basic** food **containing carbohydrate (in the form of lactose); protein (mainly casein, with small amounts of lactalubmein and lactoglobulin); suspended fat; the minerals calcium and phosphorus…

When I take a nursing newborn to the doctor, he asks me “How is she eating?”

 

[Phemie]

What is your basis for this opinion?

Perhaps it is true from a cultural point of view, but from a medical/nutritional point of view, this is not the case.

From Mosby’s Dictionary of Medicine: "Milk is a basic** food** containing carbohydrate (in the form of lactose); protein (mainly casein, with small amounts of lactalubmein and lactoglobulin); suspended fat; the minerals calcium and phosphorus…

When I take a nursing newborn to the doctor, he asks me “How is she eating?”

Juice is in the fruit food group but that doesn’t make it food.

Since the Church says milk is not food but drink (what it is to infants is meaningless since they are not called to fast) I think we can safely go by that.

 

[dans0622]

Dan, could you help me to understand better the thought of this among the canonists in the United States? …

I will attempt to give this a more extensive treatment in an upcoming post on my blog. We’ll see if I can get it done within the next week.

For now, I will say that there is not much “thought” among American canonists on this topic. There has been nothing published (in a formal sense, by an American canon lawyer) on it since, I suspect, responses to the issuance of Paenitemini…certainly nothing since the 1983 Code came into effect. There are, of course, the two general commentaries on the Code from the canon law society of America but they don’t get into what is considered liquid/drink or solid/food.

Dan

 

[babochka]

Juice is in the fruit food group but that doesn’t make it food.

Juice is a part of a whole. Tomato juice, squeezed from a tomato with the solids left behind, is drink, but I would consider pureed tomato to be food. Likewise for apple juice. If the juice has been removed from the apple, then it is not food. If the apple substantially remains, such as with those drinkable applesauce pouches, it is food. Or drinkable yogurt is food.

Then there’s this:

http://bigcitylittleblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/nuwi-1024x576.jpg

I think the trend toward drinkable meals is a previously unforeseen development that those with knowledge and authority ought to consider addressing and clarifying.

If I’m a little hungry and don’t want to make something, I’ll often have a glass of milk as a snack. For myself, that answers the question. If I consider it a snack, then I shouldn’t be eating it on a day of fasting, outside of the snacks provided for in the law.

 

[Bookcat]

What is your basis for this opinion?

Perhaps it is true from a cultural point of view, but from a medical/nutritional point of view, this is not the case.
"

Theological knowledge and experience…milk is not “food” in terms of the fast but is a non-food like drink.

Not from a cultural point of view…but a Theological Point of view.

Milk used to be something one abstained from (and perhaps still is in the East and some Monasteries).

I recall seeing an EWTN article on their website from their overseer of Theology where it noted that milkshakes *but not milk *falls under food in terms of the fast.

(search for EWTN “Fast and Abstinence” and Colin Donovan STL)

 

[babochka]

Theological knowledge and experience…milk is not “food” in terms of the fast but is a non-food like drink.

Not from a cultural point of view…but a Theological Point of view.

Ok, perhaps from a theological point of view, but theology doesn’t make science and I don’t think the Church has defined milk as non-food. Perhaps milk is a food that, because of its liquid nature, is excluded from the fast. From a scientific point of view, milk is food.

Milk used to be something one abstained from (and perhaps still is in the East and some Monasteries).

Yes, milk is still abstained from in the East and perhaps my Eastern bias is showing here. But really, I’m just arguing science. If the Church says differently, then that’s fine. Scientifically, a day is 24 hours. From the point of view of Church law, Sunday lasts about 32 hours. That’s fine. The Church is not teaching science, but giving the most generous possible options for following the precepts of the Church.

I don’t have a dog in this fight because the law that applies to me does not allow dairy products on days of fast. I’m not saying milk isn’t allowed, I’m just saying that it is an accepted exception to the rule. I only care from the point of view of the science.

I recall seeing an EWTN article on their website from their overseer of Theology where it noted that milkshakes *but not milk *falls under food in terms of the fast.

(search for EWTN “Fast and Abstinence” and Colin Donovan STL)

This is a theological opinion that is apparently not universal. As Don Ruggero has pointed out, it is not the accepted norm in Europe. Theological opinion, however learned, does not make law. What we have is the text of the law, whatever official guidance the Church has given, and our own consciences to guide us in adhering to the spirit of the law.