Newsletter of the District of Asia  Jan-Jun 2001 The Magnificat Meal Movement - an Assessment by Fr. Daniel Couture Note:  This 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. Outline Part One: Some Catholic Principle Rules for the Discernment of Spirits Part Two: The teaching of the Magnificat Meal Movement (MMM) -Books used for this study - I) 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             Conclusion Part 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 Popes: "332 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: "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.)” (From Private Revelation, Instauratio Press, 1998, p.23) 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.  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! Part Two:  The Magnificat Meal Movement (MMM) To make this study, I have in my possession the following books, which are authoritative in this movement: *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 D5) *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) *Morning Prayers (booklet for the MMM), 1997, 22 pages.  This goes with 2 audio cassettes.  (Abbr. MP) *Magnificat Meal 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) I) MMM and Ecumenism a – Texts 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 Jesus said: “Continue to bring all faiths to magnify Me in the Eucharist.”  (DE, p.23, quoting Diary 7, p.208) b - Comments 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. II) MMM and Sacred Scripture 1) Use of Protestant Bibles a - Texts 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 the following:   “Scriptures taken from the Holy Bible:   [GN] – Good News    [NIV] New International Version   [LIVING] - Living Bible [NKJ] New King James Version   [JB] – Jerusalem Bible [CLB] Catholic Living Bible   And D5 adds: “Used with permission of the publishers”. b - Comments 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. 2) Messages to confirm and explain this use of Protestant Bibles: a - Texts D8, p.294, 2nd July, 1995: After Jesus 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 July, 1995: "The use of various scripture versions that I use with you is a sign to a divided humanity.           * a sign? A sign of unity that only I can perfect.  Surrender, mankind, your many differences and I will make you one in Me.” b - Comments ‘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. 3) The teaching of the Catholic Church on the translations of the Sacred Scriptures: a) The Council of Trent: “The Fourth 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 own statutes. As 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.”  (emphasis mine) (DzS 1506-1508) b) The Popes 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 Epistle  Magno 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  (DzS 2771-2772) Encyclical Qui Pluribus of Pius IX of 9 November, 1846.  (DzS 2784) 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) (From The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1907, under Bible Societies —emphasis mine) c) Canon Law 1917 Canon 1385: “§ 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: "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. “Annotations 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.  Commentaries are 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:” III) MMM and the Holy Eucharist 1)The Nature of the Holy Mass: a Sacrifice of Praise or a Propitiatory Sacrifice? a - Texts HM, p.2; DE, p.9 quoting Diary 6, p.287-8 "Nothing 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 mine) DE. p.18, quoting Diary 6, p.312  "Even 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) b - Comments 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 certainly suspicious. Session 22, 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. (DzS 1753.  Emphasis mine) The messages 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. 2)  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. a - Texts D8, 211-212 "Dearest little 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.”   Jesus said to Debra, 6 May, 1995  (emphasis in the text)      D8, p.257-258: "The breakaway 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, 1995, *: (*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 "Nothing 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 mine) b – Comments 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 very wrong: Session 22, 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. (DzS 1751 – Emphasis mine) The whole 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. 3) What kind of Real Presence? a - Texts D8, p.257 "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. D8, p.284: "… by adoring Me in the Sacrament of Myself, exposed in all My Divinity and Humanity on your altars.” Jesus told Debra, 27 June, 1995 b - Comments 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: Session 13, 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) Canon I.-If 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. (DzS 1651)    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: Adoro te devote, latens Deitas… Prostrate I adore Thee, Deity unseen Quae sub his figuris vere latitas Who Thy glory hidest  ‘neath these shadows means In cruse latebat sola Deitas On the Cross lay hidden but Thy Deity At hic latet simul et humanitas Here 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 ago: CANON II.-If 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 be anathema. (DsZ 1652)   4) Communion in the hand a – Text D5, p.63-64 "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 to me.” “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 b – Comments 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 the same. 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. 4) Communion more than once per day a – Texts D5, p.98: "Come 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 D7,p.84 "Receiving Me both morning and night is well advised for you, My little flower of the Eucharist.”  30 May, 1994 DE, p.10, quoting D7, p.109-110 "Some 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, 1994 b – Comments 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. 6) How to show reverence the Blessed Sacrament in church a – Text D5, p.168: "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) Encourage others 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  (emphasis mine) b – Comments 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. 7) Concelebration a – Text 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.” b – Comments 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 show. IV – 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. a - Texts Back in 1987, the following message had been given: D8, p.116‑117 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 message: HM, p.1-2: "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. b – Comments 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. V) MMM and the Basic Catholic Prayers a – Texts 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.  MP, p.13 "… He descended to the dead, on the third day He rose again.  He ascended into heaven…” 3)The Our Father.  MP, p.2 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. Amen.” 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 (46) i.e.: 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 womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now, and at the hour of our death. Amen.” D8, p.182, footnote 46: "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” D8, p.183: “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]” D8, p.279: “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, 12, 13: After using 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’). b- Comments 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 pray together. 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. VI) Debra and the Priesthood a – Texts D5, p.243-244: 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 your side.  Debra continued:  St John Vianney anointed me with holy oils. D8, p.294: 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 did) 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. b – Comments 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. Conclusion 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 Church.