Author Topic: Was milk allowed during Lent before Vatican 2? (Read 1870 times)

trad123 · « **Reply #15 on:** December 26, 2020, 06:10:00 PM »

http://www.sgg.org/for-newcomers/fast-and-abstain/

Quote

Rules of Fast
The laws of fast apply to persons between the ages of twenty-one and fifty-nine. On a fast day one may eat one full meal and two light meatless meals, which together would not equal the main meal. Meat may be taken at the principal meal, except on days of complete abstinence. Liquids such as water, milk, and fruit juices may be taken between meals.

claudel · « **Reply #16 on:** December 27, 2020, 04:52:58 PM »

Quote from: Matto on December 26, 2020, 05:04:19 PM

It's wikipedia, I know, not the best source, but it goes into the history a bit and I don't see why they would lie about this topic.

On the contrary, with regard to anything having more moral significance than World Series and Superbowl scores, I respectfully suggest that you ought to assume that Wikipedia is lying—or to put the matter less censoriously, is propagating error—until you find corroboration that it isn't.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #17 on:** December 27, 2020, 10:08:10 PM »

Quote from: Disputaciones on December 26, 2020, 05:45:07 PM

You're quite the prick aren't you? If I knew where to find the answer I wouldn't be asking here would I?

Yes, I am. That does not excuse your laziness or lack of willingness to do some basic, old-fashioned research on the topic, provided it actually means anything to you. Stupid and/or lazy don't get a pass just because some people are hypersensitive softies.

I told you one place you can find the answer: The Liturgical Year by Dom Gueranger. It is an absolute treasure and is available for free online. It is 15 volumes and the matter in question is covered at length in the volume on Septuagesima (Volume IV).

Do some research, go drink some (chocolate) milk, know that I don't expect you to thank me, shut your mouth and move on to bigger and better things.

Matthew · « **Reply #18 on:** December 27, 2020, 10:32:42 PM »

Quote from: Matto on December 26, 2020, 01:55:40 PM

Milk and cheese and eggs used to be prohibited on some fast days, including Lent. I think it still is in some of the Eastern Rites and it is among some of the Eastern Orthodox. Fasting rules used to be much stricter but the Catholic Church became lenient a little at a time, not just after Vatican II.

And Deo Gratias for the Church legitimately updating Herself as the times required. If nothing was ever to be judged, changed, or modified, then Jesus would have just carved several stone tablets with everything laid out explicitly, and left them with the Apostles.

But no, instead He established an authority/hierarchy including a single head (the Pope, St. Peter) to "loose and bind" on earth.

Mankind has been devolving since Old Testament times. Basically our collective vigor/genes/constitution/health is getting worse every century. And after World War 2 our food became mass-produced, agri-business slop with little nutrition and no trace minerals.

God didn't mean for us to starve to death, or destroy our health. PROVIDENTIALLY, the fasting rules have been changed over the centuries to meet the changing needs of mankind.

That having been said, what happened at Vatican II was ridiculous. The NewChurch only kept TWO fast days, and those are obviously thrown out by most Novus Catholics, since they aren't used to fasting or abstaining. I know "good" Novus Catholics who visit a Barbecue restaurant on Good Friday -- one old lady claimed, "I think they have fish". When they got there, of course they didn't have fish. Did that bother them? Of course not. They shrugged with an "oh well" and ordered the fried chicken. Moral of the story? You can't have a habit with a period of "every 60 days" or "every 200 days". Something that infrequent is always rounded down to NEVER. Always.

Disputaciones · « **Reply #19 on:** February 23, 2021, 05:49:44 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis on December 27, 2020, 10:08:10 PM

Yes, I am. That does not excuse your laziness or lack of willingness to do some basic, old-fashioned research on the topic, provided it actually means anything to you. Stupid and/or lazy don't get a pass just because some people are hypersensitive softies.

I told you one place you can find the answer: The Liturgical Year by Dom Gueranger. It is an absolute treasure and is available for free online. It is 15 volumes and the matter in question is covered at length in the volume on Septuagesima (Volume IV).

Do some research, go drink some (chocolate) milk, know that I don't expect you to thank me, shut your mouth and move on to bigger and better things.

Have you ever asked a question here for which you could find the answer yourself?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #20 on:** February 23, 2021, 06:13:57 PM »

Quote from: trad123 on December 26, 2020, 06:07:05 PM

https://www.cmri.org/adsum/adsum-2016-12.pdf

Quote
On a fast day, such as a weekday in Lent or an Ember day, those who are obliged to fast may drink between meals, as often as they wish, liquids which are not very nourishing. Such liquids would be tea, coffee, wine, beer, and (according to the generous interpretation of most of the bishops of the United States in their regulations concerning fast and abstinence) milk, and undiluted fruit juices. But on a fast day one who is obliged to fast may not take between meals such liquids as soup, egg-nog, cream, etc., which are practically as nourishing as solid food.

LOL. Our joke at STAS was that if you could get it through a straw, it was fine, and people joked about blending up Big Macs.

I think they were poking fun of a theologian who laid down that principle.

But, in all honesty, things like egg-nog and a protein shake ... these do not seem restricted, and I'm not sure I buy this source.

There was actually a bit of variety among theologians. Many said you could drink beer between means; others that you could not One of them who said you could have beer, then suggested that you could munch on pretzels or peanuts so that the beer doesn't upset your stomach (ne potus noceat)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #21 on:** February 23, 2021, 06:16:46 PM »

Quote from: Matthew on December 27, 2020, 10:32:42 PM

And Deo Gratias for the Church legitimately updating Herself as the times required. If nothing was ever to be judged, changed, or modified, then Jesus would have just carved several stone tablets with everything laid out explicitly, and left them with the Apostles.

But no, instead He established an authority/hierarchy including a single head (the Pope, St. Peter) to "loose and bind" on earth.

Well, in that case, the only true Fast Days are Ash Wednesday and Good Friday, with abstinence on Fridays.

... unless you're a sedevacantist of course.

Well, actually, unless you're a dogmatic sedevacantist. Otherwise, a doubtful law doesn't oblige, so unless you're dogmatically certain one way or the other, you can probably pick which observance you want to do, the Traditional one or the Modern one.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #22 on:** February 23, 2021, 06:19:48 PM »

Quote from: Matthew on December 27, 2020, 10:32:42 PM

That having been said, what happened at Vatican II was ridiculous. The NewChurch only kept TWO fast days, and those are obviously thrown out by most Novus Catholics, since they aren't used to fasting or abstaining. I know "good" Novus Catholics who visit a Barbecue restaurant on Good Friday -- one old lady claimed, "I think they have fish". When they got there, of course they didn't have fish. Did that bother them? Of course not. They shrugged with an "oh well" and ordered the fried chicken. Moral of the story? You can't have a habit with a period of "every 60 days" or "every 200 days". Something that infrequent is always rounded down to NEVER. Always.

Indeed, the NO bishops won't come out and say that it's a mortal sin to not observe even these fast days. I have extended family in the NO who routinely just dispense themselves for the most trivial reasons from the Friday abstinence ... if it's slightly inconvenient. Ah, I'd have to run to the store to buy $20/lb. salmon, and since anything less is just barbaric, well, steak it is.

I don't think it's just about quantity though. There's this attitude among these NovusOrdites that being strict about observing rules and regulations is legalistic and basically like the Pharisees. What really counts is to love our neighbor (i.e. ... work at a soup kitchen for a day once every few years to make yourself feel better). Love is about telling ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs that they're fine and not judging them. If I embrace a sodomite couple, then I'm showing LUV, but in keeping the fast, well, that's like the hypocrites.

They also don't believe in the Church's authority. Everyone should, according to them, just do what their conscience tells them ... i.e. do what they feel like.

SimpleMan · « **Reply #23 on:** February 23, 2021, 07:03:22 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 23, 2021, 06:19:48 PM

Indeed, the NO bishops won't come out and say that it's a mortal sin to not observe even these fast days. I have extended family in the NO who routinely just dispense themselves for the most trivial reasons from the Friday abstinence ... if it's slightly inconvenient. Ah, I'd have to run to the store to buy $20/lb. salmon, and since anything less is just barbaric, well, steak it is.

I don't think it's just about quantity though. There's this attitude among these NovusOrdites that being strict about observing rules and regulations is legalistic and basically like the Pharisees. What really counts is to love our neighbor (i.e. ... work at a soup kitchen for a day once every few years to make yourself feel better). Love is about telling ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs that they're fine and not judging them. If I embrace a sơdơmite couple, then I'm showing LUV, but in keeping the fast, well, that's like the hypocrites.

They also don't believe in the Church's authority. Everyone should, according to them, just do what their conscience tells them ... i.e. do what they feel like.

No, they do not have to "run to the store to buy $20/lb salmon". They can have macaroni and cheese with a side serving of green beans cooked with onion (no ham, bacon, etc.). They can have a can of pinto beans and a couple of squares of buttered cornbread. They can have fish sticks and rice. Any of these meals is nutritious, simple, and really pretty good.

I know this is preaching to the choir, but not all meals have to have flesh meat. My mother grew up very poor on a tobacco farm with a patch set aside for vegetables, and they more often than not, didn't have meat with their meals. Nobody lacked anything they needed.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #24 on:** February 23, 2021, 07:05:19 PM »

Quote from: SimpleMan on February 23, 2021, 07:03:22 PM

No, they do not have to "run to the store to buy $20/lb salmon". They can have macaroni and cheese with a side serving of green beans cooked with onion (no ham, bacon, etc.). They can have a can of pinto beans and a couple of squares of buttered cornbread. They can have fish sticks and rice. Any of these meals is nutritious, simple, and really pretty good.

Well, of course. I obviously wasn't agreeing with them, just illustrating their mentality.

Disputaciones · « **Reply #25 on:** February 23, 2021, 07:37:37 PM »

Brown rice and beans with parmesan is a staple meal for me year round.

SimpleMan · « **Reply #26 on:** February 23, 2021, 08:07:28 PM »

Quote from: Disputaciones on February 23, 2021, 07:37:37 PM

Brown rice and beans with parmesan is a staple meal for me year round.

Sounds good to me. I like yellow rice (Mahatma preferred) and black beans myself, with a dab of sour cream. It will fill you up, and the beans and rice complement each other, to make a good, amino-acid- and protein-rich meal.

Nadir · « **Reply #27 on:** February 23, 2021, 08:07:58 PM »

Quote from: Disputaciones on February 23, 2021, 07:37:37 PM

Brown rice and beans with parmesan is a staple meal for me year round.

Ditto!
I use basmati wholemeal rice with butter, and beans, with grano padano. For a treat a spoon of home made salsa’l pomodoro.

Author Topic: Was milk allowed during Lent before Vatican 2? (Read 1870 times)

trad123

Re: Was milk allowed during Lent before Vatican 2?

claudel

Re: Was milk allowed during Lent before Vatican 2?

gladius_veritatis

Re: Was milk allowed during Lent before Vatican 2?

Matthew

Re: Was milk allowed during Lent before Vatican 2?

Disputaciones

Re: Was milk allowed during Lent before Vatican 2?

Ladislaus

Re: Was milk allowed during Lent before Vatican 2?

Ladislaus

Re: Was milk allowed during Lent before Vatican 2?

Ladislaus

Re: Was milk allowed during Lent before Vatican 2?

SimpleMan

Re: Was milk allowed during Lent before Vatican 2?

Ladislaus

Re: Was milk allowed during Lent before Vatican 2?

Disputaciones

Re: Was milk allowed during Lent before Vatican 2?

SimpleMan

Re: Was milk allowed during Lent before Vatican 2?

Nadir

Re: Was milk allowed during Lent before Vatican 2?