Washington D.C., Feb 19, 2021 / 12:30 pm (CNA).- A lot has changed in the three years since CNA’s last ranking of fish sandwiches.
The Chick-Fil-A fish sandwich, which we at CNA crowned the winner of the 2018 fish sandwich rankings, is not on the menu anymore.
Bojangles once had a location near CNA’s Washington, D.C. offices but has closed that restaurant. The chain’s “Bojangler” fish sandwich placed fourth out of the six fast food sandwiches sampled by CNA in 2018.
This year, as Lent is upon us once again, CNA put five fast-food restaurants head-to-head (or fin-to-fin?) to compare their fish sandwich offerings.
New to CNA’s 2021 review is Arby’s fish sandwich offering. Additionally, several other restaurants featured on the 2018 review have updated their fish sandwiches since then.
Note: This review features only fish sandwiches, defined as a piece of fried fish and other toppings and condiments in between bread. All items were ordered as specified on the menu with no modifications, and were obtained at the drive-thru and consumed at home. The ratings cover a five “?” scale, with one being the lowest ranking and five the highest ranking. A “pandering” bonus is awarded to limited-time fish sandwich offerings for the Lenten season. All prices are for Washington, D.C. area locations and may differ throughout the country.
Arby’s
Crispy Fish
Price: $4.29
Calories: 570
Website description: “Put away your fishing boat and rubber fishing pants. Arby’s wild-caught Alaskan Pollock is crispy-fried to golden-brown perfection. We top it with tartar sauce and shredded lettuce.” The sandwich is also available as a “King’s Hawaiian Fish Deluxe” on a King’s Hawaiian roll with the addition of cheese and tomato.
First impressions: The sandwich came wrapped in a dedicated fish sandwich wrapper, and also came with a packet each of Arby’s Sauce and Horsey Sauce. The fish was decidedly more on the yellow end of golden. Arby’s has “the meats,” but could it have the fish, too? I was intrigued.
Review: I liked the sesame seed bun, which kind of elevated the experience. The iceberg lettuce would have tasted better as romaine–it was forgettable and flavorless. The fillet itself was sizable but, again, tasted rather flavorless and was neither crunchy nor crispy. There was an appropriate amount of tartar sauce. I tried the Horsey Sauce and the Arby’s Sauce on the sandwich, which simply made it taste like horseradish and…Arby’s, I guess, respectively. It didn’t enhance it, it overpowered it. There was nothing special about this sandwich, aside from the bun. It would have benefitted from pickles.
Pandering: Yes, this is a limited-time offering.
Rating: ??? and a half
Burger King
Big Fish
Price: $4.49
Calories: 513
Website description: “Our premium Big Fish Sandwich is 100% White Alaskan Pollock, breaded with crispy panko breading and topped with sweet tartar sauce, tangy pickles, all on top of a toasted brioche-style bun.”
First impressions: The website claims that tartar sauce goes on the sandwich, but I’m pretty sure that my sandwich came with mayonnaise instead. The sandwich was wrapped in a dedicated wrapper specifically for fish. It smelled decent. There was a lot of lettuce on the sandwich. I liked that the pickles were crinkle-cut.
Review: The Big Fish has the same problem as the McDonald’s Filet-O-Fish–there’s nothing overtly wrong with it, but there’s nothing overtly good about it either. The addition of iceberg lettuce and pickles added an interesting texture to the sandwich, but I would have preferred romaine lettuce instead. While some of the other sandwiches suffered due to a relative lack of sauces, the Big Fish had a layer of “tartar sauce” (Burger King claims) spread on both the bottom bun and on top of the fillet. The overload of “tartar sauce” gave the distinct feeling of “wow, this is extremely unhealthy,” as I was eating the sandwich, which I guess is an appropriate feeling for Lent. The fish was not crunchy, and had a similar texture to a french fry. The lettuce was flavorless. It wasn’t bad, but I’m not going to go running for a Big Fish again unless I’m on the New Jersey Turnpike on a Friday. Also the Big Fish gave me a stomach ache after I ate it.
Pandering: No, this is on the permanent menu.
Rating: ???
McDonald’s
Filet-O-Fish
Price: $4.79
Calories: 380
Website description: “This McDonald’s fish sandwich has fish sourced from sustainably managed fisheries, topped with melty American cheese and creamy McDonald’s tartar sauce, and served on a soft, steamed bun.” A link on the website for users to “learn what kind of fish is in Filet-o-Fish” leads to a 404 error.
First impressions: It looked like a standard Filet-O-Fish, and was packaged in a cardboard box. I had to wait a short time before I received the sandwich, so I assume it was freshly made.
Review: There was nothing bad about this sandwich, but there was not a whole lot exemplary about it either. The fish wasn’t soggy, but wasn’t super crispy either. The tartar sauce tasted like…tartar sauce. I’m unclear as to why there was half a slice of American cheese on the sandwich, as it was impossible to discern the taste under the tartar sauce. It would have been nice to have pickles or some other vegetable topping as well to add texture and nutritional value to the sandwich. I’m not mad I ate a Filet-O-Fish, but I’m not going to rush back for another one anytime soon.
Pandering: No, this is on the permanent menu, but there must be consideration given to the fact that this was the original “hey, I want Catholics to eat at my restaurant on Fridays” menu item. (We will ignore the Hula Burger.)
Rating: ???
Popeyes
Cajun Flounder Sandwich
Price: $4.49
Calories: 670
Website description: “Our all new Flounder Fish Fillet, served on a warm and toasted buttery brioche bun, with crisp barrel cured pickles and tartar sauce.”
First impressions: The sandwich I received was wrapped in a foil bag, and had a paper wrapper on the sandwich itself–which I assume was to preserve the structural integrity of the sandwich. The fillet itself spilled out from the bun and was not, contra the sandwiches at Wendy’s, Arby’s, and McDonald’s, a square, making it feel less-processed.
Review: This thing is good. There was a level of spice that was not overpowering, but was an interesting contrast to the brioche and condiments. The bread was able to hold up to the sizable flounder fillet, and the flounder had more of a “meatier” taste to it than the pollock sandwiches of other fast food chains. The pickles were delicious, but my sandwich could have benefited from a bit more tartar sauce. If you live near a Popeyes, this is definitely worth getting–although it is significantly more calorie-dense than other options.
Pandering: Yes, this is limited time only and was introduced the week before Lent.
Rating: ?????
Wendy’s
Wild Caught Alaskan Fish Sandwich
Price: $4.39
Calories: 530
Website description: “Wild caught Alaskan pollock fillet, crunchy panko breading, topped with creamy dill tartar sauce, pickles, lettuce, and American cheese. Proof that ice fishing is actually totally worth it.”
First impressions: The sandwich was exactly as the website described it, and it came wrapped in foil. A helpful sticker reading “fish” was placed over the “chicken” print on the foil. I noted that unlike McDonald’s, Wendy’s puts a whole slice of cheese on their sandwich.
Review: After my first bite I said, out loud, “Well done, Wendy.” I did not have super high hopes for Wendy’s after my 2017 review (which was, not coincidentally, the last time I had a fish sandwich at Wendy’s), but this was actually a pretty solid sandwich. The fish was crispy–there was an audible “crunch” sound when I bit into it. The cheese was not doing much for me, but the pickles and romaine lettuce were a nice touch. The pickles were thick cut and flavorful. I thought the sandwich could have used a smidge more tartar sauce, but this was a solid fish sandwich.
Pandering: Yes, this is a limited time offering and replaced the previous Wild Caught North Pacific Cod Sandwich of years past.
Rating: ???? and a half
Final Thoughts:
While I was disappointed to see the Chick-Fil-A fish sandwich go, I must say that I was overall fairly impressed with this year’s slate of fried fish in between buns. Wendy’s and Popeyes, who had fairly strong showings in 2018, both improved their offerings–which was no easy task. It was interesting to see the embrace of food trends–both Burger King and Wendy’s boast about panko breading their sandwiches. (But only Wendy’s fillet actually tasted crunchy.) It was also interesting to see how the fish products have shifted over the years–Alaskan pollock seems to be the go-to fish now, as opposed to cod. And I still have no idea what was actually in the Filet-O-Fish.
The improvements in the limited-time offerings showed the glaring deficiencies of the tried-and-true standby at McDonald’s. It wouldn’t hurt McDonald’s to toss on some lettuce or pickles to their Filet-O-Fish, or perhaps add a flavor to the tartar sauce. It would greatly enhance the experience. McDonald’s could previously rest on its laurels as the original Catholic-pandering restaurant for Lenten Fridays, but those days may be numbered now.
Rankings:
Best fillet: Wendy’s Wild Caught Alaskan Fish Sandwich
Worst fillet: McDonald’s Filet-O-Fish
Best bread: Wendy’s Wild Caught Alaskan Fish Sandwich
Cheapest option: Arby’s Crispy Fish
Priciest option: McDonald’s Filet-O-Fish
Fewest calories: McDonald’s Filet-O-Fish
Most calories: Popeyes Cajun Flounder Sandwich
Best overall: Popeyes Cajun Flounder Sandwich
[…]
What steps does the Spirit invite us to take in order to grow in our ‘journeying together?
Encourage the Traditional Latin Mass and more Pro Life/Pro Family support from the clergy especially Pope Francis and the Vatican.
We read: “When you think about it being a 41-page document, how are we going to consult people? Are they going to read 41 pages?” Well, a good place to START might be Part I:5, Proposal “o” which reads in part:
“From the work of the Assembly, there is the call for better knowledge of the teachings of Vatican II (…).”
Indeed, this comes nearly forty years after the IDENTICAL CONCLUSION was achieved at the 20-years pulse-check following the Council, the Final Report of 1985 Extraordinary Synod of Bishops: “[Part 1:6] It is suggested […] a new, more extensive and reception of the Council. This can be attained above all through a new diffusion of the documents themselves [….]”
Perhaps, after almost sixty years, actually read the DOCUMENTS, as contrasted with the disembodied and decapitated “spirit of the Council” as marketed by Hans Kung and two generations of freelance theologians, including many lemming synodalizers.
Two other FINDINGS in 1985 were:
“[Part II:6]…from Vatican II has positively come a new style [not exactly a new idea!] of collaboration between the laity and clerics,” AND: “[Part II:3] We cannot replace a false unilateral vision of the Church as purely hierarchical with a new sociological conception which is also unilateral [!].”
Less dense than the inventory compiled in the 2023 Synthesis Report, key themes of the 1985 Final Report might already frame the requested “EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.” Although much of the overlay of current grassroots concerns gives added and valuable definition to engagement in the world. Omitting, of course, Germania’s distracting moral, sacramental and ecclesial novelties.
“Archbishop Timothy Broglio, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, had noted at last month’s synod that only 1% of Catholics participated in the listening sessions.”
Is that 1% of Catholics, or 1% of Catholics who attend weekly Sunday Mass?
~ 17% of Catholics attend weekly Mass, so even if that’s 1% of Catholics, it’s still only about 5% of Catholics at Sunday Mass. And it’s not like there’s enough kids to make that an impressive number.
I am not surprised that only 1% of Catholics listened/paid attention to the Synodal conference. In the U.S., most people are too busy. Yes, some of the busy stuff is “junk”–being on X (Twitter) and other social media sites, being online on sports sites and other “fun” sites, ordering stuff from Amazon and trying to find a place to put the stuff in our homes when it arrives, working (often working overtime or more than one job), driving (can take up a lot of time depending on where you live in the U.S.), taking care of children and keeping up with teens, etc. And frankly, I didn’t want to spend time listening to a conference that seemed basically to be a meeting to talk about stuff that seems to be of little importance to many of us in our daily lives. There are so many wonderful things to learn about Jesus, the Bible, the Church, etc., and so many tasks that need to be done in my home and my parish, and so many things to talk to God about in prayer–I personally think there are better ways to spend my time than listening in on a conference that I don’t really understand the purpose of. I’ll read the “summary” when it comes out, and let the “thinkers” in the Church act (or not act) on the Synodal Way.
Drinking a six pack and staring at a turned off tv screen is a more valuble way to spend time than participating in the evil enterprise of a synod. Christians are oblighed to resist evil.
If the synod was held to hear the voices of Catholic lay people, then in my opinion, it has failed. Why even hold a synod if only one per cent of Catholics participated? Why is Francis insisting on having these synods, if the vast majority of Catholics express little to no interests? How does he know that the Holy Spirit will guide his synod in any way? To me, these synods are a waste of time, energy and money. I understand that the Vatican is not in good shape, financially. Is the Vatican able to afford these meetings?
Synod’s next step. Cancel all future meetings, give those millions of dollars to the poor and all those involved spend one month in a retreat given by Bishop Strickland entitiled: “Caritas in ecclesia”.
Yours truly humbly proposes that the needed EXECUTIVE SUMMARY of the Synthesis Report actually appears within the report itself! Not to diminish the contents of the report, but first an observation, then the very concise summary, and then a concluding question…
OBSERVATION: Curiously, the table of contents for the Report appears at the end rather than the beginning. The first impression is that this is either a formatting error, or a cross-cultural touch toward Hebrew, or Chinese, or even Egyptian hieroglyphic ways of reading, but no…this is a right-brained effort to place the “concrete” process in front and above of any synoptic or disdained “abstract” perspective.
THE SUMMARY QUOTE: Part III, n. 20—The Synod of Bishops and Ecclesial Assemblies: Convergences (a):
“Even though the experience of ‘walking together’ has been tiring, the Assembly sensed the evangelical joy of being [?] the People of God. The new experiences involved in this stage [?] of the synodal journey were generally welcomed [two thirds?]. The most obvious one included the shift [paradigm shift?] of the celebration of the Synod from an event [!] to a process [!]…”
CONCLUDING QUESTION: Event vs Process? As in “…being [?] the People of God?” Does this wording actually propose/impose, broadly and by subliminal suggestion, that experiences together displace being? That ontological being is subordinate to horizontal becoming? That what we are is reducible to what we do? That to do is the sum total of to be?
So, the process IS the message, “aggregated, compiled, synthesized” by “facilitator” bishops, more or less. AND, this message can be summarized: “Do-be-do-be-do-be-do”! The conceptual ambiguity of convergent synodality! The enabled reduction of pluriformity to pluralism. On this “backwardist” journey, which is not so new, the lay theologian Etienne Gilson reminds us:
“Philosophy always buries its undertakers.”
What’s occurring at the Synod is a circumscribed process that is light years away from the comprehension, or practical relevance to the vast sea of Catholic Christians. Mrs Sharon Whitlock’s comment expresses it well. Nor does a summary inform the reader of the rationale for getting there. That alone speaks to an exercise in futility. Unless there is a rationale to further an agenda.
Certainly this pontificate has an agenda to modernize the Gospel contextually, grounding it in cultural differences, scientific advances, anthropological, biological, philosophical, theological [recently proposed to that effect by pope Francis]. What will result is rote indoctrination of material that is otherwise unintelligible to the average Christian. Nor will the average Christian, or any Christian for that matter be able to identify continuity with the revealed Word of God.
The agenda was provided two millennia ago in the Great Commission.
However, That’s hard work, especially in these times and I suspect few if any Bishops can provide any evidence from their particular diocese of increased Mass attendance; reduced pre/non-marital cohabitation, increased conversions; the end of church closures; increased marriages.
Instead we get vainglorious soliloquys from our “Shepherds”.
Instead of looking to Rome for guidance, the bishops might save time (and sanity) by reading The Catholic Thing, Nov. 17.
Why do these bishops feel obligated to act as stupidly as entertainers?
The Bishops have an obsession with material poverty, to the exclusion of the far more pervasive and destructive moral poverty. On well, another verbose document should help.
Good point, and I believe the reason is because the first is a product of the latter which they refuse to acknowledge since it would implicate their failures.
Getting back, again, to the need to “formulate concrete plans to prepare for the final stage of the Synod on Synodality next fall”…The Synthesis is 41 pages, some 21,000 words, and was tweaked by 1,251 amendments (the devil is in the details). The term “LGBTQ+” is deleted. Deleted also is a permanent and content-free synod. The Magisterium is noted ten times rather than four in the draft report (but now whose magisterium?).
One simplifying way of preparing for 2024 might be to focus on the trees rather than the forest. That is, where are the unblended drops of cyanide in the punch bowl?
Two such possibilities:
The proposed “[16 (p)]…ministry of listening and accompaniment,” as potentially eclipsing the guardianship of the Deposit of Faith? And, “[12 (h)] Further reflection is needed on the relationship between episcopal collegiality and diversity of theological and pastoral views,” as possibly contradicting the clarity supplied in Veritatis Splendor, including “The Church [as in ‘episcopal collegiality’] is no way the author or the arbiter of this [‘moral’] norm” (n. 95).
Further, regarding the forced dichotomy (though much amended in the Synthesis) between progressive synodality and what is conservative, reflection reveals that there is no such thing as “conservatism” as a movement, per se, as if to counter the many historical movements of progressivism… Instead, a grounding in the fact of creation by a Creator. That is, the mystery and radical fact of “existence” (the is-ness of things) before “essence” (the thing-ness of things). With Leibniz, too, “why is there something rather than nothing”! Being above becoming, reality before ideas…
Of this conservative VISION, which should pervade any activism and even synodality, yours truly blatantly inserts, here, the vision of an unapologetic and archconservative layman, Frederich D. Wilhelmson (“Citizen of Rome: Reflections from the Life of a Roman Catholic” 1980):
“I repeat the thesis: we conservatives cannot cure the modern world: we do not hold the power, nor is it likely to pass into our hands. But if liberals–and they are in the saddle almost all over the West–will make the descent into the maelstrom of the modern soul, they will find in conservatism a diagnosis of the disease of our time. We conservatives have lost our kings and our chivalry; our craftsmen are gone, and our peasantry is fast disappearing. Our horses have been shot from under us. We have nothing to offer the world but our VISION.” Not a program at all, but a vision! The pre-modern and again awaited sacral nature of creation and of all of reality.
Does our synodal response to the “signs of the times” discount or even reject—or embrace—this broader and deeper and conservative (so-called backwardist?) “vision” …Wilhelmsen’s “rhythm [!] of being and becoming” [both]?
The exercise on discernment offers a constructive road map. “The human voice can never reach the distance that is covered by the still small voice of conscience” – Mahatma Gandhi