Newsletter of the District
Magnificat Meal Movement -
study has been done after discovering that many followers of the
MMM are now attending mass centers of the SSPX in two of our centers
in Asia, as well as in Ireland and in Canada. It is a fact that
God does use all kinds of means to bring people to the True Mass.
But we hope that by finding the true Mass, these faithful will
also discover the true Catholic doctrine, and will embrace it
above any message coming from dubious sources.
One: Some Catholic Principle Rules for the Discernment of Spirits
Two: The teaching of the Magnificat Meal Movement (MMM)
-Books used for this
MMM and Ecumenism
II) MMM and the use of Protestant Bibles
III) MMM and the Holy Eucharist
IV) MMM and the New Mass
V) MMM and the basic Catholic prayers
VI) Debra and the Priesthood
One: Some Catholic Principles on Discernment of spirits
The Church has dealt
with the supernatural world from its beginning. It knows that the
devil does not always tempt souls by suggesting evil things. Sometimes,
frequently in fact, with good people striving to progress in virtue
and to avoid sin, he will transform himself in an angel of light
as St Paul says: “Satan himself transformeth himself in an angel
of light” (II Cor. 11,14), suggesting good thoughts that are
is conformity with the thoughts of the soul and gradually leading
her to his own path and ideas. This is what St. Ignatius of Loyola
says in his Rules for the Discernment of Spirits approved by 42
Fourth Rule. The fourth: It is proper to the evil Angel, who
forms himself under the appearance of an angel of light, to enter
with the devout soul and go out with himself: that is to say, to
bring good and holy thoughts, conformable to such just soul, and
then little by little he aims at coming out drawing the soul to
his covert deceits and perverse intentions.
333 Fifth Rule.
The fifth: We ought to note well the course of the thoughts, and
if the beginning, middle and end is all good, inclined to all
good, it is a sign of the good Angel; but if in the course of
the thoughts which he brings it ends in something bad, of a distracting
tendency, or less good than what the soul had previously proposed
to do, or if it weakens it or disquiets or disturbs the soul,
taking away its peace, tranquillity and quiet, which it had before,
it is a clear sign that it proceeds from the evil spirit, enemy
of our profit and eternal salvation.
334 Sixth Rule.
The sixth: When the enemy of human nature has been perceived and
known by his serpent's tail and the bad end to which he leads
on, it helps the person who was tempted by him, to look immediately
at the course of the good thoughts which he brought him at their
beginning, and how little by little he aimed at making him descend
from the spiritual sweetness and joy in which he was, so far as
to bring him to his depraved intention; in order that with this
experience, known and noted, the person may be able to guard for
the future against his usual deceits.”
The great Dominican,
Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, in his book The Three Ages if the Interior
Life (chap. 54), lists the evil effects of having a desire for
revelation as being at least a venial sin, even when the soul has
a good end in view. He writes:
The above texts, fruit
of a multi-secular experience, shows that the prince of darkness is
an expert in telling us something to be very wrong, and then gradually
making us do that very thing. He knows how to divert the attention
on something else while he makes us do that very thing.
"St. John of
the Cross strongly reproves the desire for revelations. On this
point he is in complete accord with St. Vincent Ferrer, and shows
that the soul desiring revelations is vain; that by this curiosity
it gives the devil the opportunity to lead it astray; that this
inclination takes away the purity of faith, produces a hindrance
for the spirit, denotes a lack of humility, and exposes it to
many errors …
All this clearly shows
the error of imprudent directors who, impelled by curiosity, are
concerned with souls favored by visions and revelations. This
curiosity is a deformation of spirit which casts the soul into
illusion and trouble, and turns it away from humility through
vain complacency in extraordinary ways.
Sad to say in our
day not only seers but large numbers of ordinary lay people are
violating these rules by their curiosity and avidity for hearing
‘What Our Lady said.’ Indeed some apparition sites are turning
into oracles in that large numbers of the people are frequenting
them and turning to them as the surest source on earth for knowing
God's Will. Such a pagan practice is unheard of in the history
of Christianity. Jesus Christ established a visible Church and
said to the Apostles, and through them to their successors, the
bishops, ‘ He who hears you, hears Me.’ If Catholics try to replace
that Magisterium with oracles, they will be inviting Satan to
run their lives.
St. John of the Cross
concludes his chapter on this subject with the following: ‘ The
devil rejoices greatly when a soul seeks after revelations and
is ready to accept them; for such conduct furnishes him with many
opportunities of insinuating delusions, and derogating from the
Faith as much as he possibly can; for such a soul becomes rough
and rude, and falls frequently into many temptations and unseemly
habits.’ (Ascent of Mount Carmel, Book 2, Chapter 11.)”
Private Revelation, Instauratio Press, 1998, p.23)
Here are some examples
is when the modernists accuse Archbishop Lefebvre and his Society
of St Pius X of being schismatic, of dividing the Church, etc.
and while they are saying this, they turn around and bluntly defy
the Pope themselves on matters of faith, of contraception, of marriage
of priests, etc. They will also say, “No one understands Latin!”
but at the same time encourage the speaking in tongues of the charismatics!
There was a place of
apparition in Portugal, in the mid-1970s, called Ladeira do Pineiro,
which was encouraging Eucharistic reparation, asking everyone to
receive Holy Communion only kneeling and on the tongue. So far,
so good. But then, it also asked some ‘chosen’ lay people to carry
some ‘miraculous’ Hosts with them (like you would carry a Miraculous
Medal, around the neck). These were married people, teenagers!
That is not even allowed to priests. The result of these messages
was even more eucharistic profanations. It started by promoting
reparation and it ended by increasing the profanations!
Two: The Magnificat Meal Movement (MMM)
To make this study, I have
in my possession the following books, which are authoritative in this
*What God might say
to Me today … in Australia
Diary 5 A series of Reflection with Debra of Australia
First edition 1994, reprinted 1995, 254 pages (Abbreviation
*What God might say
to Me today … in Australia
Diary 8 with extracts from Diary 9 and earlier diaries. A series
of Reflection with Debra.
First Edition, 1996, 450 pages. (Abbr. D8)
(booklet for the MMM), 1997, 22 pages. This goes with 2 audio
cassettes. (Abbr. MP)
Prayer Group Booklet 1996, 40 pages (Abbr. MMPGB)
*Holy Mass (The
Tridentine Mass in English with some slight changes and additions
as it is used in the MMM.) 1999, 22 pages (Abbr. HM)
*Debra and the Eucharist,
by Ray Burke (a member of the Slaves of the Eucharist, founded
by Debra), Nov. 1999, 40 pages. (Abbr. DE)
MMM and Ecumenism
Debra wrote in the
Introduction of MMPGB, p.1:
“All Magnificat Meal
prayer groups are ecumenical in response to this unifying call to
magnify the Lord, our God. Group and silent prayer before the Blessed
Eucharist (the Heavenly Meal) and sharing a ‘cuppa’ together characterises
most ‘Magnificat Meals’. This coming together is a wonderful means
of experiencing that spirit of unity and magnifying the Lord’s Love
in our lives further.”
On 7 September, 1994
“Continue to bring all
faiths to magnify Me in the Eucharist.” (DE, p.23, quoting
Diary 7, p.208)
The expression “all
faiths” certainly goes against the very nature of Faith. There
is only one true Faith. Moreover, if one refuses a single article
of Faith (Purgatory, etc.,) one no longer has faith. The other
religions and Protestant sects all refuse one or many articles of
the Catholic faith.
This ecumenical nature
and goal of MMM will thus explain the following issues: the use
of Sacred Scripture non-Catholic version, and the way it deals with
the Holy Eucharist.
MMM and Sacred Scripture
Use of Protestant Bibles
The first observations
when looking at the books (D5, D8, MMPGB), even before reading the
messages, is the very reference, before the title page, to the text
of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith A.A.S
58,1186, saying that Pope Paul VI abolished the need for the imprimatur
and the nihil obstat, required up to that moment to print
private revelations, “provided that they contain nothing contrary
to faith or morals”.
This implies that the
seers and the readers are truly knowledgeable about their faith.
However, on the exact
same page, of these three books, (D5, D8, MMPGB), we read that all
the Scriptural quotes in the books are abbreviated according to
taken from the Holy Bible:
– Good News
New International Version
- Living Bible
New King James Version
– Jerusalem Bible
Catholic Living Bible
D5 adds: “Used with permission of the publishers”.
So, at least 4 Protestant
Bibles (JB: the text is good but the notes dangerous; CLB:
a Catholic version of the Protestant Living Bible?) are used
to teach Catholic? That is definitely against explicit Catholic
teaching as will be seen below.
Messages to confirm and explain this use of Protestant Bibles:
D8, p.294, 2nd
saying: “Dear child, tell My children not to read those newspapers
which are freemasons’, but in fact claim to be Catholic”, Debra
sees and comments a vision in which she says:
“(…) They are reading some scripture, but I hear the angels say
they are using a twisted understanding of the scriptures (just like
the freemasons do). I understood that people should use true
scripture to discern. Those who don’t will be more easily deceived
by ecclesiastical freemasons who use the scripture in a warped manner
to lead souls to hell. (…) (Emphasis in the text)
D8, p.302, 7th
"The use of various
scripture versions that I use with you is a sign to a divided
* a sign?
A sign of unity that
only I can perfect. Surrender, mankind, your many differences
and I will make you one in Me.”
‘Our Lord’ Himself is
justifying the use Protestant Bibles for the sake of ecumenism!
How can that be? And the Diaries are full, at almost every page,
of references, given by ‘Jesus’, to Protestant versions of the Bible.
Notice also how attention
is drawn to freemasons’ writings – but it is not said that so many
Protestants are … freemasons! There is never a word against Protestant
versions of the Sacred Scripture, obviously.
And are the 4 various
Protestant Bibles used throughout the books really “true
scripture”? This is what Debra is implying. Here, there is
only mention of the interpretation of scripture “a twisted
understanding”. No mention of the translation, which,
logically, precedes in importance the interpretation. The answer
to the question is no! The texts of the Popes which follow make
that very clear.
The teaching of the Catholic Church on the translations of the Sacred
The Council of Trent:
Session, celebrated on the 8th day of April, in the year 1546.
DECREE CONCERNING THE EDITION, AND THE USE,
OF THE SACRED BOOKS
(…) Furthermore, in
order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no
one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith,
and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine,
--wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume
to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures,--hath held and
doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers;
even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at
any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their
Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.
And wishing, as is
just, to impose a restraint, in this matter, also on printers,
who now without restraint,--thinking, that is, that whatsoever
they please is allowed them,--print, without the license of ecclesiastical
superiors, the said books of sacred Scripture, and the notes and
comments upon them of all persons indifferently, with the press
ofttimes unnamed, often even fictitious, and what is more grievous
still, without the author's name; and also keep for indiscriminate
sale books of this kind printed elsewhere; (this Synod) ordains
and decrees, that, henceforth, the sacred Scripture, and especially
the said old and vulgate edition, be printed in the most correct
manner possible; and that it shall not be lawful for any one to
print, or cause to be printed, any books whatever, on sacred matters,
without the name of the author; nor to sell them in future, or
even to keep them, unless they shall have been first examined,
and approved of, by the Ordinary; under pain of the anathema and
fine imposed in a canon of the last Council of Lateran: and, if
they be Regulars, besides this examination and approval, they
shall be bound to obtain a license also from their own superiors,
who shall have examined the books according to the form of their
to those who lend, or circulate them in manuscript, without their
having been first examined, and approved of, they shall be subjected
to the same penalties as printers: and they who shall
have them in their possession or shall read them, shall, unless
they discover the authors, be themselves regarded as the authors.
And the said approbation of books of this kind shall be given
in writing; and for this end it shall appear authentically at
the beginning of the book, whether the book be written, or printed;
and all this, that is, both the approbation and the examination,
shall be done gratis, that so what ought to be approved, may be
approved, and what ought to be condemned, may be condemned.”
Besides the regulations
of the Council of Trent and other regulations concerning Bible-reading
in general, we have several acts of the popes directed explicitly
against the Bible societies (societies who distribute any kind of
Bibles to everybody).
Perhaps the most notable
of these are contained in the
et Acerbo of Pope Pius VII, 3 Sept.1816 (DzS 2710-2712)
Encyclical Ubi Primum of Leo XII, 5 May, 1824 (DzB 1607-1608)
Encyclical Inter Praecipuas of Gregory XVI, 6 May, 1844
Encyclical Qui Pluribus of Pius IX of 9 November, 1846.
It may be well to give
the most striking words on the subject from Leo XII and Pius IX.
"You are aware,
venerable brothers, that a certain Bible Society is impudently
spreading throughout the world, which, despising the traditions
of the holy Fathers and the decree of the Council of Trent, is
endeavoring to translate, or rather to pervert the Scriptures
into the vernacular of all nations. It is to be feared that by
false interpretation, the Gospel of Christ will become the gospel
of men, or still worse, the gospel of the devil..” (Leo XII)
“These crafty Bible
Societies, which renew the ancient guile of heretics, cease not
to thrust their Bibles upon all men, even the unlearned, — their
Bibles, which have been translated against the laws of the Church,
and often contain false explanation of the text. Thus, the divine
traditions, the teaching of the fathers, and the authority of
the Catholic Church are rejected, and everyone in his own way
interprets the words of the Lord, and distorts their mean, thereby
falling into miserable errors.”. (Pius IX)
The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1907, under Bible Societies
Canon Law 1917
“§ I. The following books, even though published by laymen, must
be submitted to ecclesiastical censure:
1.° The Books of Holy Writ and annotations to and commentaries
on the same.”
The Commentary on
the New Code of Canon Law, by Fr. C. Augustine, (Herder Bks,
1921, vol.VI, pp.434-435) explains the above canon thus:
MMM and the Holy Eucharist
"This canon first
lays down a general rule as to what books must be submitted to
ecclesiastical censorship, and then designates the authority competent
to grant the imprimatur.
“Hence the original
text of each and every one of the forty‑five books of
the Old Testament and the twenty eight books of the New Testament
must be submitted to ecclesiastical censorship. Also parts of
the same (pericopes) and translations or versions,
whether old or new. Old versions are the Latin Vulgate
as well as the Itala, the Oriental versions of the Septuagint,
the Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian. New versions are those
made into modern languages. These translations must be submitted,
even if only parts or pericopes are to be published, for
instance, the Epistles and Gospels for Sundays and holy days.
For the text simply says "libri sacrarum Scripturarum,"
and can. 1384, § 2 finds its application here.
are short explanations or glosses, either continuous or partial,
such as were made on single words between the lines or
in the margin, and are now generally placed at the foot of the
page (footnotes). It does not matter whether these notes are printed
separately from, or together with, the text, whether they are
original or translated, as our canon simply says, vel. Nor
are footnotes on the pericopes exempt from this law.
treatises in the form of annotations or explanations of the books
of the Old and New Testament, altogether or severally. What was
said concerning annotations also holds with regard to commentaries:”
Nature of the Holy Mass: a Sacrifice of Praise or a Propitiatory
HM, p.2; DE, p.9 quoting
Diary 6, p.287-8
can replace or surpass this essential core of worship. It is here
that you offer Me your greatest sacrifice of praise – Myself.
It is here that I, your Everlasting Father, give you the True Meal
of life.” Jesus to Debra, 8th March, 1994 (emphasis
DE. p.18, quoting
Diary 6, p.312
the smallest grain which falls from the Eucharist has the complete
nature of the perfect sacrifice. You have underestimated My
Sacrifice mankind.” Jesus to Debra, 18 March, 1994 (emphasis mine)
In all the passages
that I have read in the various books of MMM, I have never found
the words ‘propitiatory sacrifice’ or even ‘sacrifice for sins’
in the messages. A message which aims at restoring faith in the
Holy Eucharist in a time of crisis which never mentions the fundamental
element of the crisis (the Novus Ordo is presented as a meal) is
CANON III.--If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass
is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or,
that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on
the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits
him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the
living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities;
let him be anathema.
1753. Emphasis mine)
do not say explicitly that it is ‘only a sacrifice of
praise’ but by never mentioning the propitiatory nature of the
Mass and insisting on it as a sacrifice of praise, one is certainly
led to believe, by omission of the full truth, that it is only a
sacrifice of praise.
The second quote is
a very un-orthodox way to explain the nature of the Sacrifice of
the Mass. The perfect Sacrifice takes place by the double consecration.
One specie alone does not constitute the Sacrifice, the two are
needed. For instance, if, by mistake the priest consecrated liquor,
or some alcoholic spirit or wine not made of grapes, there would
be no ‘sacrifice’, there would only be the transubstantiation of
the first specie, therefore, there would be real presence, but there
would be no sacrifice. To say then that “the smallest grain
which falls from the Eucharist has the complete nature of the perfect
sacrifice”, is false.
The expression ‘smallest
grain’, is never used in Catholic language, it is called a particle,
not a grain, which makes one thinks primarily of food.
The Nature of the Mass (continued) : a Meal or a Sacrifice?
The strange name of
the movement, Magnificat Meal Movement, was given explicitly
in the messages. The use of the word “Meal’ is very, very frequent
and, used exclusively, is simply a Protestant presentation of the
Holy Mass. In the following capital texts, it will be very clear.
one, you experience the pain of division in My Body. My Own Heart
is rent over the division and lack of faith of those who do not
believe that I am fully present in the Eucharist.
As soon as I gave
this Sacrament to My Church, division began to arise in souls
who failed to accept the Divine Meal nature of this Sacrament
of My Love.
This, My Magnificat
Meal Movement, is My Spirit rectifying this division in My Body.
I am your Divine
Meal, mankind, and it will be the Eucharist which will both unite
and divide. Your mouths take the Divine Bread. Your hearts and
souls receive Me, the Eternal Food of Grace.”
said to Debra, 6 May, 1995
(emphasis in the text)
groups (i.e. new churches down through the ages which have broken
away from the `Rock of Peter—adds Debra) seek to dissipate faith
in Me and My Presence with you in the Eucharistic Host. This
Movement (the Magnificat Meal Movement International) is My Own
Action to rectify this neglect of Me in the Eucharist.
I am not just
a symbol or a remembrance.
I am Fully Present,
as the Divine Meal from Heaven in each Sacred Mass.
My people, you
have done so little to stop this false thinking about Me in the
Eucharist as a fellowship meal.
I am the Divine
Meal. I have chosen the Magnificat Meal Movement as My Own
Movement to bring back awareness of My Divine Nature in the
Eucharist to your confused minds. Jesus told Debra, 6 June,
(*Footnote 57 in
D8, p.257: “The underlined words in this message were greatly
emphasized by the Lord.”)
HM, p.2; DE, p.9
quoting Diary 6, p.287-8
replace or surpass this essential core of worship. It is here
that you offer Me your greatest sacrifice of praise – Myself.
It is here that I, your Everlasting Father, give you the True
Meal of life.”
to Debra, 8th March, 1994 (emphasis mine)
The Council of Trent
has also taught that to present the Holy Mass only in the aspect
of the Sacrament, the communion, but not first as a sacrifice, was
Canon I.--If any one saith, that in the mass a true and proper sacrifice
is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else
but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema.
1751 – Emphasis mine)
crisis of the Church since the new Mass arrived, concerns this very
issue. All the liturgical changes, altars turned around, vernacular,
plain table used, communion in the hand, etc. are a result of the
insistence on the Mass as a Meal, and not as a propitiatory
Sacrifice. This is exactly what the Protestant Reformation did
in the XVIth century, both in England and in Germany.
A similar insistence
in these messages is so clear: It might be said: “I am not
just a symbol or a remembrance” which makes one think that
what will follow is the real Catholic teaching, but no, we read
surprising following words: “I am Fully Present, as
the Divine Meal from Heaven in each Sacred Mass. I am the Divine
Meal. I have chosen the Magnificat Meal Movement as My Own Movement
to bring back awareness of My Divine Nature in the Eucharist
to your confused minds”. At the end, the mind is still
confused, because the Mass is not a primarily a Divine Meal, it
is a Sacrifice for sins! This is another example of infernal deceit:
First: “I am not just a symbol or a remembrance”, but
then, “I am the Divine Meal.” That is not Catholic
doctrine. This brings us to the next point.
What kind of Real Presence?
"I am not
just a symbol or a remembrance.
I am Fully Present,
as the Divine Meal from Heaven in each Sacred Mass.” 6
June, 1995, Jesus told Debra*: (*Footnote 57 in D8, p.257:
“The underlined words in this message were greatly emphasized
by the Lord.”)
D8, p.295 :
" My Heart
is now calling all souls to come share this sweet companionship
with my Son, a companionship of paradise, available to you now in
the Sweetest Bread of the Blessed Sacrament, my Son (God fully
in the Eucharistic Bread—Debra added). Our Lady said to Debra,
4 July, 1995.
adoring Me in the Sacrament of Myself, exposed in all My Divinity
and Humanity on your altars.” Jesus told Debra, 27 June, 1995
The expression “fully”
is ambiguous. It is never used alone by the Church to speak
of the Real Presence. Fully spiritually? When Our Lard said in
the Gospel that He is present when two or three are praying in His
name, He is ‘fully’ present to these people. The Real Presence
is also a full presence but of another kind, it is a substantial
presence: the substance of the bread and of the wine is changed
in the substance of the Body and Blood of Our Lord. The key words,
defined by the Council of Trent are these:
Chap.1 In the first place, the holy Synod teaches, and openly and
simply professes, that, in the august sacrament of the holy Eucharist,
after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ,
true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained
under the species of those sensible things.
(DzS 1636 – Emphasis mine)
any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist,
are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood
together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and
consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein
as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.
The Council said clearly
that “our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man is (…)contained
under the species of those sensible things.”
The Divinity and humanity
are certainly not visible, or “exposed” in the Holy Eucharist.
They are there but under the species, the appearances of
bread and wine. As St Thomas Aquinas wrote:
te devote, latens Deitas…
I adore Thee, Deity unseen
sub his figuris vere latitas
Thy glory hidest ‘neath these shadows means
cruse latebat sola Deitas
the Cross lay hidden but Thy Deity
hic latet simul et humanitas
is hidden also Thy Humanity
The continual use of
the word “Bread” along with the word ‘Meal’ in the Messages is seriously
misleading. Many Protestants believed in the ‘impanation’, i.e.,
that the bread remained with a kind of real presence. Many Catholics
believe that Our Lord is fully there but spiritually
only. The Council of Trent heard of that too and condemned it:
These things and other similars were already being said 400 years
any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist,
the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the
body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful
and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into
the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the
species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed
the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him
Communion in the hand
"Receive Me in
your hands because you have My Holy Spirit. I who am God have
humbled Myself in this form (the Eucharist). Again I allow Myself
to be handled by mankind. Hold Me. Carry Me. Embrace Me. For
I who am Almighty have humbled Myself for love of thee.
I desire you to touch
Me and I will daily reignite you. Receive Me daily. Teach others
to receive Me in love. Teach others to handle Me lovingly and
reverently. Be humble as I am humble. Allows others to handle
your life too. I am Jesus the Son of God and the Son of Man.”
Debra says: “O Jesus
I love to hold You in the Eucharist. Grant me the grace to always
handle You reverently. Many people believe it to be sinful to
receive Communion in the hands. Thank You for making this clear
“It is not sinful
to receive Me on the hands. It is the heart I read. If a heart
receives Me lovingly with faith in My True Presence as the Meal,
then both the heart and the hands are washed in My Holy Blood.
My Blood washes such hands as these whiter than snow. Hands so
covered with My Blood receive Me most worthily. It is those hands
that do not have My Spirit and My Blood upon them which grieve
Me.I hear many who order others about telling them how they MUST
receive Me in a particular way. Be cautious not to be drawn into
ordering My people. To those who ask share what I have said to
you today.” 7 September, 1993
This is very clear.
The messages not only allow but encourage communion in the hands.
And Debra is asked to pass it around, to encourage others to do
Some words are however
unbecoming on the lips of Our Blessed Lord: . “Hold Me. Carry
Me. Embrace Me. For I who am Almighty have humbled Myself for
love of thee. I desire you to touch Me”.
It is interesting that
it is said, “Carry Me”. It is exactly like the messages
of Ladeira do Pineiro which I mentioned in the beginning. There
is one testimony which says that she is carrying the Eucharist with
her. Early in 2000, a priest who was traveling with Debra was asked
why Debra didn’t attend a Mass that had been said, the only one
available that day. The reply was that it was not really necessary
since he was sure that Debra had the Eucharist with her.
Where is the teaching
of the Catholic Church in all this? Where is the respect for her
laws? This is the door open to all the profanations of the Novus
Ordo which have followed the introduction of communion in the hand.
It is the approbation of eucharistic ministers (if they have the
dispositions requested by the message above, what can be wrong then??),
of children handling the Blessed Sacrament, etc.
Communion more than once per day
and receive Me in My Eucharistic Form. Receive Me daily - and more
often as I lead. I have made your soul to hunger greatly for Me,
your Divine Meal.” 29-9-1993
DE, p.10, quoting
Me both morning and night is well advised for you, My little flower
of the Eucharist.” 30 May, 1994
DE, p.10, quoting
I call invitingly to offer the sacrifice of the Mass both morning
and night. This is your need too. Return to this practice of attending
the Holy Mass at the beginning and close of each day.” 19 June,
It is a common practice
of the Conciliar Church to encourage more than one communion a day.
The traditional practice of the Church is only once a day. To receive
Holy Communion once a day fruitfully is already a very great privilege.
In these last messages and in the previous about communion in the
hand, we note a disordered familiarity with the holy Eucharist,
which in fact leads to disrespect. As it was said at the beginning:
under the pretext of more reverence, more profanations take place.
How to show reverence the Blessed Sacrament in church
"A man told you
yesterday that you did not need to genuflect at Communion as the
Holy Spirit is with you. I was pleased to hear you say that you
would continue to do it, daughter. I sent your angels to show
you how to reverence My Presence in this way. Your genuflection
is a sign to the world that 1 am truly present.
Each time My people
pass the Tabernacle and genuflect, I bless them and rejoice over
them as on a festival day. (Zeph. 3:17)
to reverence My Holy Presence (in the Eucharist) with an
act of devotion. This can be a genuflection,
a sign of the Cross or kneeling before Me. Each may choose that
which suits him for I am easily pleased by a loving heart that
believes in My True Presence.” 7th November, 1993
It is then up to everyone
to decide how best to reverence the Blessed Sacrament. Where are
the century-tested rules of Holy Mother Church on how to behave
in a church? What remains of the sacred liturgy if “Each may
choose that which suits him”? We are back to the unpredictable
creativity of the New Mass. Religion becomes what each one may
decides as best. It is now with the Blessed Sacrament, like the
Protestant do with the Bible. A ‘do-it-yourself’ attitude.
No more the wise guidance of the Catholic Church.
DE, p.18, quoting
Diary 6 p.46:
On 22 December
1993 (Brunswick, Don Bosco Chapel) Debra wrote: “The concelebrating
priests also had many angels around them whilst they held the Eucharist.
I tried to count the angels and God said that it would be impossible.
He again pointed out that the angels are in huge numbers at each
Mass and that we should adore Him with awesome reverence during
Mass like the angels do.”
It is interesting to
see how the various aspects and manifestations of the conciliar
liturgy are all approved, one by one. It is worth remembering when
severe criticism of the new mass will start, as we are about to
– MMM and the New Mass – the wind changes.
Other texts could be
brought forward showing how the messages urge the members of the
MMM to adore the Blessed Sacrament, to visit it, to expose it, and
so on. One has to remember, as the last quote about concelebration
proved, that it was always to the Novus Ordo, to the ordinary parish
where the Novus Ordo is daily celebrated, where the Holy Eucharist
consecrated during a Novus Ordo Mass was kept in the tabernacle,
or expose in the Monstrance, that the Messages led to. The Traditional
Mass is hard to find nowadays, and harder and harder as all the
old faithful priests who kept it are dying one after the other.
Back in 1987, the following
message had been given:
quoting Diary 1, 8th December, 1987:
"I will use you
to announce with a quiet voice the reign of the antichrist's beginning.
It will be a time very soon, when the sacrifice of the Sacred
Mass is no longer sacred to many. The horrible sacrilege will
be man himself, exalted, replacing Me at My altars as the gods.
They will at that time remove Me from My Tabernacle-Thrones.
Quietly and together,
We will sweep a Movement of the fire of My Holy Spirit (later
proved to be the Magnificat Meal Movement International) across
all nations to rectify the neglect of Me as fully God, alive with
you in the Eucharist. It will be a Movement that gathers an adoring
and obedient remnant away from the antichrist and his alterations
of My House and My Sacrifice (the Mass). Tabernacles will
be torn down. Sacred statues will be destroyed.
The Mass will be altered
and in many places terminated, leaving echoing barns with wordy
ceremonies in the place of My Sanctuaries. Together We will build
a Basilica of Eucharistic adoration, to which My frightened flock
will flee from all nations. The antichrist will appear, at that
time, to have removed Me as the eternal sacrifice, but My remnant
Movement will bring forth a small obedient flock who will not
adore the horrible sacrilege of man himself on My altars ".
And , at a Mass on June
19th, 1999, the Blessed mother gave Debra the following
"O grieved is
my heart when the Body of Christ was torn from the Sacred Mass
at the command of the ‘Novus Ordo.’ Adore the truly consecrated
Sacred Sacrament. Too many adore the Bread unconsecrated due
to the horrible sin of so many priests and false priests.
Heaven can remain
silent about this atrocious sin against the Mass no longer.
This is not a Mass
but Paul’s sin. And my Divine Son’s Body is not present.
I am crying for my
betrayed and starving children.” (emphasis mine)
This is followed in
the booklet HM, p.2, by
NB: The Novus
Ordo Mass was introduced to the Church by Paul VI in 1969 and mandated
in 1974 only in the “Western Wing” of the Catholic Church.
In 1999, all of a sudden,
the followers of the MMM are told that the Novus Ordo is invalid?
“And my Divine Son’s Body is not present.” There is a
big problem now.
The message of 1987
given above announced that “There will be a time very soon…when…they
will at that time remove Me from My Tabernacle‑Thrones… The
Mass will be altered and in many places terminated, leaving echoing
barns with wordy ceremonies in the place of My Sanctuaries”. Meanwhile,
the MMM will be founded “across all nations to rectify the neglect
of Me as fully God, alive with you in the Eucharist.” A movement
which is dedicated essentially to the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament.
Ray Burke who wrote
the booklet Debra and the Eucharist, says on its first page
that the first Magnificat Meal Movement group of adoration was started
in Melbourne, Australia, in October 1990. And in six years, it
had 38,000 groups in 70 countries! These are groups who were very
active around the Holy Eucharist.
Now, all of a sudden,
the Message of June 19th 1999 says that “Heaven can remain silent
about this atrocious sin against the Mass no longer. This is not
a Mass but Paul’s sin.” By referring to Pope Paul VI directly,
it is referring to 1969, and not to some abuse that would have taken
place in the last few years. “And my Divine Son’s Body is not
present…” “but My remnant Movement will bring forth a small obedient
flock who will not adore the horrible sacrilege of man himself on
My altars ".
So, this whole eucharistic
life based on the New Mass and the New Liturgy is completely shattered.
. “Too many adore the Bread unconsecrated”. But the messages
themselves said to go and adore!!! When confronted with this objection,
some followers of Debra told me that the New Mass was now invalid
because Heaven had finally decided so in another message (which
I don't have). Where is the Catholic Doctrine on the sacraments
in all this? It all becomes very arbitrary.
MMM and the Basic Catholic Prayers
1)The Sign of the Cross
is done in the Orthodox way by touching the right shoulder before
the left shoulder (oral instructions given to members which were
passed on to me).
2)The Apostle Creed.
descended to the dead, on the third day He rose again. He ascended
3)The Our Father. MP,
Jesus to Debra: Feast
of the Baptism of the Lord 8.1.95:
“Hide here, little
flower. in My Heart. Behold the beauty of My Sacred Heart. Lift
your head above your enemies and let Our Two Hearts (Jesus and
Mary) entwine with yours, echoing forth the prayer of the Hearts
who love and glorify Our Father. Let your heart pray this prayer
as Mine does with true love:
Our Father, who
is in heaven, Your Name is holy, Your kingdom come, Your Will
be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily
bread and forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against
us. Lead us away from all temptation and deliver us from all evil.
4)The Hail Mary. D8,
p.182, 5th April, 1995:
"The words, 'Hail
Mary, full of grace,' were of such heavenly greatness that the
Almighty Father sent His heavenly messenger to proclaim them in
the world. Honor these words also by continually praying this
prayer (the Hail Mary) which brings honor to the Holy Trinity
of God. Continue to say this Trinitarian prayer, (the Hail Mary)
in the way the Lord has asked, for these end times of rejoicing
Rejoice, O Holy
Mary, for you are full of grace, and the Lord is with you.
Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your
Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now, and at the
hour of our death. Amen.”
"46 Recently the Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, said that
translations of the Angel Gabriel's greeting to Mary 'Ave Maria'
in Latin and 'Hail Mary' in English, do not fully convey the joy
with which she was to receive the news of her divine motherhood,
A better translation of the New Testament Greek would he 'Rejoice,
Mary'. "We must not forget that the angel is aware of bringing
an announcement which is unique in human history: a simple, normal
greeting then would seem out of place". Vatican City Paper,
(talk on May 1, 1996) page 7, Sunday, May 26, 1996”
“Luke 1:26-28 "Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel
was sent by God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin
betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David.
The virgin's name was Mary. And having come in, the angel said
to her, 'Rejoice, highly favoured one, the Lord is with you; blessed
are you among women!” [NKJ]”
“After Mass and Rosary an old lady angrily told me 1 prayed
the Hail Mary wrongly. I told her my angel taught me how to pray
this prayer as a sign of the end time people of God being a rejoicing
people, united to Our Lady, as in the book of Revelations. She
became angrier and accused me of being against the Pope and a
division in the Church, when I heard the Lord say sadly: It is
ones, like this soul, who fill My Sanctuary with their self-righteous
division, which caused My Wounds. and continue to scourge Me.
I weep. I bleed.”
“Colossians 2:8 "See
to it, then, that no one enslaves you by means of the worthless
deceit of human wisdom, which comes from the teachings handed
down by men and from the ruling spirits of the universe, and not
from Christ." [GN]”
5)Hymns MMPGB, p.10,
some traditional hymns, Appendix 4 Magnificat Meal Hymns adds among
others, the following hymns and tunes: Honour Her (to tune of
Edelweiss); the Magnificat (to tune of ‘Amazing Grace’); Amazing
Cross (to tune of ‘Amazing Grace’).
One can see the fundamental
flaw of these messages in the above texts: the authority of the
Church is by-passed, it is even despised with the last quotes from
Col. 2,8. The source of our prayers becomes the messages themselves.
In this way there is a clear break with the whole tradition of the
Church, and also a rupture of the unity of the faithful when they
The prayers are the
first thing Catholic parents teach to their children, through them
the faith is passed on, according to the saying ‘the law of prayer
is the law of belief – lex orandi, lex credendi”.
Moreover, by changing
the formulas approved by the Church, one also looses the indulgences
attached to the said formulas.
Some brief observations.
In the Apostles Creed,
there is no mention of “hell”, nor of the physical resurrection
‘from the dead”, which the modernists purposely omit believing that
the resurrection of Our Lord was only spiritual.
The Our Father is not
even in a good English grammar: Our Father who is in heaven…
The Hail Mary : at first
the traditional form is praised, “The words, 'Hail Mary, full
o f grace,' were of such heavenly greatness…” and then, typically,
they are replaced by the Protestant version “Rejoice, O Mary…”
The quote (footnote 46) from the Holy Father shows sadly disrespect
for over 1500 years of the use of the Ave Maria, and hundreds
of year of the Hail Mary.
Lastly, this and the
incident with the women criticizing the new formulas proves again
what we have repeatedly pointed to: see the shrewdness of the author
of these messages, how he succeeds in making his listeners do and
accept the very thing he apparently condemns. By quoting the Protestant
version of the Scriptures against those who criticize the messages,
and using these versions for the prayers, he himself is enslaving
his listeners by means of the worthless deceit of human wisdom,
which comes from the teachings handed down by men and from the ruling
spirits of the universe, and not from Christ.
Debra and the Priesthood
St John Vianney said:
You have cried out to God for more priests to help you in the
work that God has given you to do in gathering souls away from
sin into the light around the Eucharist. Our Heavenly Father
is allowing you to minister to his priests with your suffering…
Debra then said a
few words, and Mary said :
My priest is with
you ( St John Vianney). He will use your suffering to minister
to those priests in need. Allow him to anoint your hands and
St John Vianney anointed me with holy oils.
Debra says: You are
my God. I will give You praise 0 my God. You are my Saviour.
The reply: You are
a priest in the line of Melchizedek
(Debra adds: i.e
Melchizedek was not an ordained priest but because of his love
for God and his unending adoration of God, he was accepted as
priestly and as an identifying sign of the coming of the humble
Priest of priests, Jesus Christ. We are all invited to fulfil
the “priesthood of ministering adoration to God” as Melckizedek
for you have My identity.
With My Divine Identity you also share in My role of ministering
to God the Father and to the Church with your loving adorat'ron
of reparation. I am Jesus, the Son of God and the Son of Man.
Take My Identity. I will he your Shield. I will be your Armour.
Put on the Full Armour of My Blood and share. fully in My Role.
It is not surprising
that Debra, while denying possessing the ordained priesthood, is
in the way of fulfilling all its roles. The expression “Thou art
a priest according to the Order of Melchisedech” (proper Catholic
translation) is used to differentiate the priesthood of the New
Testament and that of the Old Testament. It is used in the ordinations
of Catholic priests, and always applied to Catholic priests. Debra’s
interpretation of it is simple not acceptable.
More could be found
and said regarding the MMM. Suffice it to say that, with the study
made so far, there are enough proofs to conclude that the Magnificat
Meal Movement cannot come from God. Moreover it certainly leads
to Protestantism by its Protestant approach to the Bible,to the
Holy Eucharist, and by by-passing the submission to the Holy Catholic