I've read it many times, and it doesn't forbid prayers and blessings simply because they are found in the Old Testament. What it forbids is practicing the Old Testament rites, ceremonies, sacraments and sacrifices.  If all prayers and blessings from the Old Testament are now cursed, the Traditional Mass would be cursed since it includes countless prayers and blessings from the Psalms.  

Firstly, the "blessings" you touted are тαℓмυdic, not Old Testament, so are already—without need of Cantate Domino—damned by Jesus as the "traditions of [the Pharisees]" (Mark 7:9) and their "two-fold children of hell" (Matthew 23:15) proselytes of тαℓмυdic Judaism.. You tried to trick us with your "at the time of Erza" ploy, but nobody bought your lie.

Secondly, even if those "blessings" were Old Testament, they are damned by Cantate Domino precisely because they are "rites, ceremonies, sacraments and sacrifices."  Those "blessings" (actually curses) are part of the Jews' anti-Christ liturgy.  A fortiori, those "benedictions" are not Old Testament Scripture.

Thirdly, nothing in Cantate Domino forbade the inclusion of Scripture in our liturgy.

Bottom line: You are a lying Judaizer who has TWICE tried to pass off man-made тαℓмυdic manure as though it is the Word of God.

BTW, circuмcision is an Old Testament ceremony. It prefigures baptism.  Since the Council of Florence teaches that "the ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments," of the Old Law " cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation," do you believe all who are circuмcised are lost? What about Catholic parents who have their children circuмcised and never repent of it? Are they lost?.  If you answer no to either question, explain why in light of Florence's teaching.

The above paragraph is the kind of ignorance that suggests you are either not Catholic (an infiltrator or false convert), a poorly-catechized Catholic, or convert with an incomplete conversion (quite common among "Hebrew-Catholics").

The Church has long distinguished medical circuмcision (allowed and sinless) from religious circuмcision (forbidden and damning). In a similar vein (pun intended), a medical salpingectomy (e.g., to treat a tubal pregnancy) is allowed and sinless, but a contraceptive salpingectomy is forbidden and mortally sinful. Intent matters.

Similarly, an author might quote or a reader might read those "benedictions" aloud ("Hey, listen to this sick stuff the тαℓмυdic Jews pray…") without incurring sin. But to PRAY those тαℓмυdic "benedictions"—as the Novus Ordo "Mass" does—is a forbidden (Cantate Domino) blasphemy. Intent matters.

Here are some examples of those sick тαℓмυdic "benedictions": http://judaism.is/paganism.html#curses

Are you ignorant or deceitful on this matter of circuмcision?

.
You are outside of the Catholic Church and therefore cannot be saved.    

You have no competence and no jurisdiction.

Exactly, which means that popes are allowed to change the missal. Your idea that it only prohibits "substantial" changes is one you invented to reconcile the fact that many popes have altered it with the fact that QP prohibits any alteration. But it doesn't say that in the text. It says no changes at all. So either all those other popes who altered it broke the law, or popes are able to alter QP with bulls of their own.

The answer is, of course, the latter.

The pre-V2 changes to the Roman Missal did not change the Liturgy, did not change the way we worship. That popes could and did make changes to the Roman Missal (Liturgy) without corrupting or damaging the Liturgy demonstrates that the popes understood both the letter and the spirit of the law.

Whether the new missal is a revised version or a new version, I can agree with Pax that it is new, not revised, because of all the obvious reasons. Either way, because by law the new missal is not permitted to be used in the Roman Catholic Church, it is a sin, "The Great Sacrilege" to do so.  

 


   

I'm not touting any blessings.  

Au contraire, you began your string of lies and straw men to defend substituting the тαℓмυdic "made by human hands" blasphemy for the Spotless Victim.

I'm not touting any blessings.  

Indeed you touted "blessings" (N.B., quotes because (((they))) call their curses "blessings," just as (((they))) call the тαℓмυd you tout "Torah").

You, kosher boy, ham-handedly tried to "bless" the "blessings" by elevating тαℓмυdic manure "from the time of Ezra" as though it has the force of Scripture.

You even alluded to the тαℓмυdic blessings as "true religion" and pretended that "that fact alone" vindicated the blasphemy. Quoting you: "If a Blessing was used by the true religion during the time of the Old Testament, why would you concluded based on that fact alone that it is cursed and blasphemous to use today?"

What I'm saying is they wouldn't be cursed today simply because they were used during the Old Testament.

Straw man. Neither I nor anyone here claimed the тαℓмυdic "blessings" would be "cursed simply because they were used during the Old Testament."  Neither I nor anyone here claimed the тαℓмυdic "blessings" would be "cursed simply because they were used during the Old Testament."

No, the тαℓмυdic traditions are not damned because of their age ("from the time of Ezra" or otherwise), but "simply" because, as I explicitly stated, the тαℓмυdic "blessings" are damned by God Himself at Mark 7:9 as "traditions of men" that are contrary to God.

If you are now calling them a "tradition" of the Pharisees from the time of Christ, you are saying they were used during during the Old Testament. Not a post-OT tradition of the тαℓмυd, as you said before.  Make up your mind.  

The "traditions of men" that God Himself damned are a continuum of "traditions of men" that were originally "oral," but from 1 to 3 centuries after Jesus Christ were compiled into first the Mishnah, then the Gemara—namely, "the тαℓмυd." The ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan even refers to the written тαℓмυd as "Oral Torah" (Torah she beal peh, תורה שבעל פה). Here again is the link that explains this in detail: http://judaism.is/torah.html  I first provided you that link when you stupidly claimed that the тαℓмυd is not "Torah" (in quotes).

The oral traditions of the Pharisees are one and the same as the written traditions of the тαℓмυdic Jews.
The тαℓмυdic Jews boast that they follow the Pharisees.*** тαℓмυdic Jews are those foreseen by Jesus Christ in Matthew 23:15 and damned as "two-fold chidlren of hell more than [the Pharisees]": "Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you go round about the sea and the land to make one proselyte; and when he is made, you make him the child of hell twofold more than yourselves."

Show me what commandment of God the blessing in question made void.

Asked and answered repeatedly, kosher boy.

Evidently, you still consider the blasphemous substitution of "made by human hands" for the Spotless Victim to be a "blessing."

You keep referring to that blasphemous demotion of Jesus Christ as a blessing and prayer (no quotes).

There was no trick. The article you posted said the blessing was not from the time of Ezra, and gave a evidence that they are not listed in the books of Ezra.  But that is a logical fallacy.  Just because the books of Ezra don't mention them does not mean they are not from the time of Ezra.

Of course, you tried to trick us.

1. The only logical fallacy is in the straw man of your own creation.
The timing of the blasphemy is not the issue.

2. You just referred to the blasphemy as a blessing (no quotes).

More fallacious reasoning. Contante Domino does not condemn blessings used during the Old Testament.  If it did, most of the Psalms would be forbidden.

There you go again, kosher boy, calling the blasphemy a blessing (no quotes).

As I have already told you, Cantate Domino does NOT condemn Scripture. Cantate Domino does NOT forbid Scripture in our liturgy or prayers.

The ceremonies of the Old Law are in Scripture stupid.  

The ceremonies of the Old Law are damned by Cantate Domino.

The ceremonies of the Pharisees (not "true religion" as you posited) and тαℓмυdic Jews are damned in Mark 7:9 and Matthew 23:15.

Stop conflating Phariseeism and "ceremonies of the Old Law"/"true religion," kosher boy.

I never tried to pass of the тαℓмυd as scripture.

The hell you didn't.

Ezra v. "from the time of Ezra"

Pharisees/тαℓмυdic Jews v. "true religion"

Pharisees'/тαℓмυdic Jews' rites v. "ceremonies of the Old Law"

So, you wouldn't object to a Catholic attending a Passover Seder as long as he did so for health reasons?

I posted a link to you explicitly explaining the evils of the тαℓмυdic hate feast. Here is the link again, kosher boy.
http://judaism.is/paganism.html#curses

Kosher Boy, you are a desperate liar to suggest that I am the Judaizer here.


*** Proof texts of the lineage of тαℓмυdic Judaism:

“This is not an uncommon impression and one finds it sometimes among Jews as well as Christians - that Judaism is the religion of the Hebrew Bible. It is, of course, a fallacious impression. Judaism is not the religion of the Bible.”
Rabbi Ben Zion Bokser, Judaism and the Christian Predicament, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1967, p.59, 159

“The Jєωιѕн religion as it is today traces its descent, without a break, through all the centuries, from the Pharisees. Their leading ideas and methods found expression in a literature of enormous extent, of which a very great deal is still in existence. The тαℓмυd is the largest and most important single member of that literature, and round it are gathered a number of Midrashim, partly legal (Halachic) and partly works of edification (Haggadic). This literature, in its oldest elements, goes back to a time before the beginning of the Common Era, and comes down into the Middle Ages. Through it all run the lines of thought which were first drawn by the Pharisees, and the study of it is essential for any real understanding of Pharisaism.”
Universal Jєωιѕн Encyclopedia, Vol. 3 pg. 474

“Pharisaism became тαℓмυdism, тαℓмυdism became Medieval Rabbinism, and Medieval Rabbinism became Modern Rabbinism. But throughout these changes of name, inevitable adaptation of custom, and adjustment of Law, the spirit of the ancient Pharisee survives unaltered.”
Rabbi Dr. Finkelstein, The Pharisees: The Sociological Background of Their Faith, The Jєωιѕн Publication Society of America (1946) p. xxi

“The тαℓмυd is the written form of that which in the time of Jesus, was called the ‘Tradition of the Elders,’ and to which He makes frequent allusions.” *
Michael L. Rodkinson, The History of the тαℓмυd: From The Time Of Its Formation About 200 B. C. Up To The Present Time, Kessinger Publishing, LLC (June 8, 2006), ISBN-13: 978-1428631366, p.70
* “Allusions”? Yes, Jesus damned those man-made traditions for voiding the commandment of God. Mark 7:8-9

“The complex of rabbinically ordained practices ... including most of the rules for the treatment of Scripture itself--do not derive from Scripture at all. Rabbinic Judaism’s initial concern was with the elaboration and refinement of it’s own system. Attaching the system to scripture was secondary. It therefore is misleading to depict rabbinic Judaism primarily as a consequence of an exegetical process or the organic unfolding of Scripture. Rather, rabbinic Judaism began as the work of a small, ambitious, and homogeneous group of pseudo-priests ...By the third century (A.D.) the rabbis expressed their self-conception in the ideology of “Oral Torah” which held that a comprehensive body of teachings and practices (halachot) not included in Scripture had been given by God and through Moses only to the rabbinic establishment.”
Rabbi Jacob Nuesner, Rabbinic Judaism: Structure and System, pp. 31-34


“On the surface, Scripture plays little role in the Mishanaic system, The Mishnah [of the тαℓмυd] rarely cites a verse of Scripture, refers to Scripture as an entity, links its own ideas to those of Scripture, or lays claim to originate in what Scripture has said, even by indirect or remote allusion to a Scriptural verse of teaching... Formally, redactionally, and linguistically the Mishnah stands in splendid isolation from Scripture....the Mishnah constitutes Torah. It too is a statement of revelation, ‘Torah revealed to Moses at Sinai.’ But this part of revelation has come down in a form different from the well-known, written part, the Scripture. This tradition truly deserves the name ‘tradition,’ because for a long time it was handed down orally, not in writing, until given the written formulation now before us in the Mishnah.... Since some of the named authorities in the chain of tradition appear throughout the materials of the Mishnah, the claim is that what these people say comes to them from Sinai through the processes of qabbalah and massoret --handing down ‘traditioning.’ So the reason... that the Mishnah does not cite Scripture is that it does not have to.”
Rabbi Jacob Neusner, The Mishnah: A New Translation. New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 1988. pp. xxxv-xxxvi.

The popes prior to V2 who made changes to the Liturgy put words in Pope St. Pius V's mouth?

Again, Quo Primum forbids making alterations to the missal. It doesn't say "altering the missal is fine but not the liturgy"; that's something you just made up. 

The Missal *is* the Liturgy, Quo Primum is the law that protects the Liturgy. Seems you often times confuse this. It is plain the popes understood the spirit of the law, it is equally plain you guys do not.

And several popes before Vatican 2 altered the missal and Quo Primum. Were they breaking the law? 

And several popes before Vatican 2 altered the missal and Quo Primum. Were they breaking the law?

You are the first one ever to claim Quo Primum was altered, where did you get that from?

And no, according to the spirit of the law they did not break the law of QP by the changes they made to the missal.

I am returning to the stated topic of this thread.  I do not know if the report is true, but if it is true, then the person in question -- or anyone walking a similar path -- was poorly catechized to begin with.  

The Novus Ordo has become, correctly, an umbrella term.  Used without the third word, "Mass," (appropriately in quotation marks, some would say).  "The Novus Ordo" is not just a worship "form."  It is a belief system, harmonious with that same "liturgy." It is by definition a false belief system, because there is no authentic Catholic Church that is 58 years old.  There's no such thing as "a modern Catholic Church."  It remains ancient in its origins, or it is a different church.