In my previous blog posts I had stated that the reading list from Frannie’s book Fixing Frannie contains New Age authors. In this post I will show the reading list and comment upon some of the notable New Age authors that not only have influenced her religious formation but which she recommends to her readers. The substantive information concerning these authors will be found at the links in each of the sections. Reading these articles will give you a better insight into the religious influences upon Frannie.
Marcia Montenegro of CANA/Christian Answers for the New Age was also a contributor to this blog post. You can find out more about her ministry at www.christiananswersforthenewage.org
Jung, C.G.
Jung was into the occult and pagan religions and can ultimately be referred to as a panentheist basing itself in a monistic worldview. For Jung there is a collective unconsciousness, a concept which Jung felt was proved by his principle of synchronicity. A book by Jung by the name Synchronicity can be found in the reading list of Frannie’s book, Fixing Frannie.
Deepak Chopra
Deepak Chopra is one of the most well-known and successful New Age writers in the U.S. and maybe the West. Seven Spiritual Laws of Success presents such New Age concepts as pantheism and karma. He talks of success but achieving them is partly based on New Age worldviews.
Among other books written by Chopra is "The Third Jesus," about which an article was written showing his view concerning “Christ-consciousness”, a synonymous term with God-consciousness. Chopra denies the unique incarnation of Jesus but rather presents a New Age Jesus where he shows us that we too are One with the Father, just as he is.
http://christiananswersforthenewage.org/Articles_ChoprasThirdJesus.html
James Redfield
James Redfield lays out New Age principles in The Celestine Prophecy, including the belief that all is energy and as one spiritually advances, his body vibrates at a higher frequency and becomes lighter. He states that this is why Jesus was able to walk on water. The climax of the book is the teaching that you can advance to the point of your body disappearing, and he writes that this is why it appeared that Jesus ascended into heaven. Jesus did not really ascend, he just "lost" his body due to his high spiritual vibration.
New Age books don't just conflict with Christianity; they attack it. Montenegro’s article on this book: http://christiananswersforthenewage.org/Articles_Celestine.html
Redfield's The Tenth Insight is merely a continuation of The Celestine Prophecy (which presented "nine insights").
Gary Zukav
Zukav believes we create our own reality and that the present material world is illusory. The following is an article on Zukav's book, Seat of the Soul.
http://www.watchman.org/articles/new-age/gary-zukav--a-failure-to-name-evil/
Reading List (2nd ed.)[i]
The reading list was expanded in the second edition, two years after the first printing in 2001, adding two books from Chopra, two more from Zukav, and two more from Redfield.
Chopra, Deepak. The Way of the Wizard. Harmony Books, 1995
Chopra, Deepak. The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success. Amber-Allen Publishing, 1993.
Cousins, Norman. Anatomy of an Illness. Bantam, 1980.
Cousins, Norman. The Celebration of Life. Harper and Row, 1974.
Cousins, Norman. Head First. Penguin Books, 1989.
Church, Dawson and Sherr, Alan. The Heart of the Healer. Asian Publishing, 1987.
Frankl, Viktor. Man’s Search For Meaning. Washington Square Press, 1959.
Frankl, Viktor. The Doctor and the Soul. Vintage Books. 1980.
Hillesum, Etty. An Interrupted Life. Henry Holt and Company, 1996.
Jung, C.G. Synchronicity. Trans. R. F. C. Hull. Princeton University Press, 1969.
Mollette, Glenn. Silent Struggler. GMA Publishing and Inspiration Press, 2001.
Redfield, James. The Celestine Vision. Warner Books, 1997.
Redfield, James. The Tenth Insight.Warner Books, 1996.
Redfield, James. The Celestine Prophecy. Warner Books, 1993.
Siegle, Bernie, MD. Love, Medicine, Miracles. Harper and Row Publishers, 1986.
Siegle, Bernie, MD. Peace, Love and Healing. Harper and Row Publishers, 1989.
Zukav, Gary. Seat of the Soul. Simon and Schuster, 1989.
Zukav, Gary. Soul Stories. Simon and Schuster, 2000.
Zukav, Gary, Francis, Linda. Heart of the Soul. Simon and Schuster, 2001.
[i] Rose, Frannie. (2003) Fixing Frannie (2nd ed.). Newburgh, Indiana: GMA Publishing.
Wednesday, April 27, 2016
Sunday, April 17, 2016
Examining Frannie #9: On Biblical Interpretation
“Sometimes with the people I work
with especially those trained in theology I ask them to take the
interpretations which they were taught and put it on a shelf and let
God teach them the way the scriptures read. And so when they hear
God's voice and their doing, you know, doing a sermon or homily or
just doing a talk on theology then they are able to use what God told
them... And then they take their books back and the message then has
great depth their able to put the two together.”
Mind Conditioning in the New Age
In this blog post I wish to convey to
you the importance of biblical interpretation and the subtitles that
are often involved in discerning differences between interpretations
presented by the New Age movement and those of historic orthodox
Christianity.
The most problematic aspect of
Frannie's entire body of teaching is that she speaks to us in a
manner that assumes at the offset that what we think in the matters
of God are erroneous. This method is very effective with those who
may feel uncertain about what they think about God, be dissatisfied
with inadequate answers they have received so far concerning
difficult aspects to the Christian faith, or have labored under false
understandings due to poor catechesis that opens them to want a
better alternative.
Marcia Montenegro, an expert in the New
Age and how they attempt to influence Christians, explains it this
way: “To keep dismissing our previous beliefs or knowledge is a way
to undermine any Christian teaching or concepts we've had previously.
This is really a form of mind conditioning and is common in the New
Age.”
In other words, the concepts and
rhetoric that she uses is specifically designed to lead us away from
what we have known to be revealed by God in order that we will be
much more receptive to her teachings about how we relate to Him. In
all the language that she uses about the egoic mind and the complete
dismissal of what we know about God is meant to prepare our mind for
a new set of teachings. We are to put aside what we have known to be
true through the Church as revealed through Scripture and Tradition
so that we will more readily accept an alternative view, presumably
based upon a higher authority, which surprisingly will be consistent
with what she will teach us.
This method is employed to condition
our minds for better receptivity to accepting a New Age paradigm. A
more direct route would be to reason with us concerning the details
of her teaching. However, this would most likely be ineffective
because we know better, which is why she does not engage in public
responses to our concerns within the diocese, or publicly admit
certain aspects of her teaching such as when she declined to respond
to whether she maintained reincarnation on one of the Rocky Mountain
Views interviews. However, if she can get us to set our
presuppositions aside in order to accept a “voice within” with
little to no discernment, then she can undercut the entire Christian
revelation, and increase the possibility that a spirit which teaches
differently than what we have already received through the Church
will begin to influence us.
The Task of Exegesis
The academic process of being mindful
of one's presuppositions and being honest about one's certainty
concerning the meaning of a passage is an extremely important aspect
of allowing Scripture and the teachings of the Church to assist us in
growing in our understanding. We most certainly are to have an
openness to learning more about Scripture and the theology of the
Catholic Church otherwise we will not be able to discern New Age
deceptions, nor know the difference between the way that New Age
gurus quote Scripture and the meaning of them which is retained
within the Church, the difference between this meaning and one
proposed by “the wisdom from within”.
The task of exegesis is to draw out the
original intent of the passage within its own historic context and
literary genre. A discipline that requires openness to where the
evidence leads over against interpretations we may have picked up at
some point in time, such as when Frannie says “Jesus teaches this
as well”.
If however in doing this a spirit
proposes a meaning that is not consistent with the Christian faith
then to put the two together would lead one into error and end up
accepting a New Age interpretation which is contrary to historic
orthodox Christianity. The more uncertain a person is about the
meaning of a particular passage the more impressionable they will be
towards proposed interpretations.
A friend of mine who had been involved
in the New Age movement while attending an evangelical denomination
said that he would receive biblical inspiration from a spirit that
made the Scriptures come alive. Excited concerning his insights he
wanted to share these wonderful interpretations with everyone. When
he was delivered from demonic possession and began to learn Scripture
through the Church he found that the sense in which he once
understood certain passages from a New Age perspective were found to
mean the complete opposite now that he understood the text according
to the Church.
The New Age has more of an esoteric
approach to biblical interpretation which would be more driven by a
spirit speaking to us and we come to know that it is true in more of
an intuitive manner.
Scripture is to be read within its
broader apostolic, communal, and ecclesiastical contexts; that is,
within the heart of the Church. Concerning our reading of Scripture
Vincent of Lerins, in his A Commonitory, gives us a clear and
succinct explanation of the necessity of this approach:
“With great zeal and closest
attention, therefore, I frequently inquired of many men, eminent for
their holiness and doctrine, how I might, in a concise and, so to
speak, general and ordinary way, distinguish the truth of the
Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical depravity. I received
almost always the same answer from all of them—that if I or anyone
else wanted to expose the frauds and escape the snares of the
heretics who rise up, and to remain intact and in sound faith, it
would be necessary, with the help of the Lord, to fortify that faith
in a twofold manner: first, of course, by the authority of divine law
[Scripture] and then by the tradition of the Catholic Church.
“Here, perhaps, someone may ask: ‘If
the canon of the scriptures be perfect and in itself more than
suffices for everything, why is it necessary that the authority of
ecclesiastical interpretation be joined to it?’ Because, quite
plainly, sacred Scripture, by reason of its own depth, is not
accepted by everyone as having one and the same meaning… Thus,
because of so many distortions of such various errors, it is highly
necessary that the line of prophetic and apostolic interpretation be
directed in accord with the norm of the ecclesiastical and Catholic
meaning.”
A New Age Interpretation
Here is a case in point: In John
8:56-59 it states “Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of
seeing my day; he saw it and was glad” “You are no yet fifty
years old,” the Jews said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”
“I tell you the truth.” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was
born, I am!” At this, they picked up stone to stone him...”
New Agers Mark and Elizabeth Clare
Prophet interpret this passage in a way different than historic
orthodox Christianity:
“...Jesus knows his True Self to be
the Light-emanation of this Christ that always was, is, and ever
shall be. And he wants you to know that your Real Self is also that
selfsame Light.”i
“Jesus' I AM Presence looks just like
yours. This is the common denominator. This is the co-equality of the
sons and daughters of God. He created you equal in the sense that he
gave you an I AM Presence – he gave you a Divine Self”ii
Likewise, Jesus states that “I and
the Father are One” (John 10:30). New Agers will take this to mean
that just as Jesus came to identify himself as one with God then we
too need to come to this same realization that our heart and God are
together as One. Through this enlightenment, this God-consciousness,
we come to realize that we are not sinful creatures but are unlimited
and perfect in our True Self. We're not going to be saved from our
sins by the blood of Jesus, the only God-man, but we're going to be
God, unlimited mind.
And why not? Doesn't Jesus tell us that
“I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one
as we are one...” (John 17:22).
New Agers often quote Jesus more than
any other spiritual teacher and by doing so add credence to their own
teachings. Ideas which would otherwise seem absurd to us can become
much more acceptable if couched in the words of Jesus. Perhaps
Frannie would tell us that the Jews picked up stones because they
were following a religion which was the product of the egoic mind,
and as a result the Jews were prone to violence for this reason. And
that they rejected the enlightenment that we can have
God-consciousness, an awareness that our heart and God are together
as One. Franne tells us that “God-consciousness is infinite, it’s
eternal, unlimited by thought and perception – ‘I AM,’
unrefined by the ego.”
Therefore, once we set aside our
understanding of this passage that 1) Jesus claims the divine name “I
AM” exclusively for himself, and 2) the Jews picked up stones to
stone Jesus because they saw this as blasphemy, then we are open to
accepting other interpretations, especially those proposed by the New
Age.
Worldview Confusion
Everyone has a worldview built upon a
set of presuppositions. We do this as an attempt to create coherence
out of everything that we come to know. When someone with a New Age
worldview approaches Scripture they tend to take the words from text
and bring them into the context of their New Age teachings. They see
the words used by Jesus and endow them with a meaning which is
foreign to the original context.
One of the best examples of worldview
confusion was brought to my attention by James Sire in his book
Scripture Twisting: 20 Ways the Cults Misread the Bible. If
you have not read this book, then you owe it to yourself to
familiarize yourself with all the different ways that one can use
Scripture to come to alternative interpretations which are not
consistent with historic orthodox Christianity.
After Paul healed a man who had been
lame from birth we shall see the crowd witnessing the miracle
exemplify worldview confusion.
“When the crowd saw what Paul had
done, they shouted in the Lycaonian language, 'The gods have come
down to us in human form!' Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul they
called Hermes because he was the chief speaker. The priest of Zeus,
whose temple was just outside the city, brought bulls and wreaths to
the city gates because he and the crowd wanted to offer sacrifices to
them” (Acts 14:11-13).
The crowd continued to misunderstand
what they were seeing and continued to offer sacrifices to the
apostles even after Paul and Barnabas spoke further about who they
were and who God was. This is what happens when a New Age guru
misinterprets the words of Jesus. They come to the text of Scripture
with their presuppositions and come away understanding them in a
manner different than their original intent in the same manner as the
crowd misunderstood Paul and Barnabas by bringing their own religious
perspective into the situation which was foreign to the actual
context. If a spirit gives us an interpretation of Scripture which is
contrary to the results of exegesis and to the teachings of the
Church then it is to be rejected, and never put together with what we
have already known.
The False Dilemma and the Voice of
God
The method Frannie presents of setting
aside interpretations which we have been taught opens us up to the
possibility of being influenced by New Age interpretations of
Scripture such as the entire God-consciousness paradigm. We know that
Frannie has stated that Deepak Chopra has been her greatest influence
and we know that he maintains this New Age perspective as seen in his
book, The Third Jesus. And Frannie attempts to support this
method by using an axiom: “God can't teach you what you think you
already know”.
Why can't God teach me something if I
think I already know it? If I already know God's revelation through
Jesus Christ, then there is nothing different that God will need to
teach me about it. People who may not know the rational content of
revelation or how God has revealed himself to us may not feel very
certain that they understand it in all its aspects. The idea that God
can't teach them unless they let go of what they think they know is
what opens people up to New Age teachings and makes them more
vulnerable to suggestion. We want to take what we know and bring it
with us so that we can do a comparative analysis between what we
think and the objective evidence that we find through the exegetical
method, and the teachings of the Catholic Church. While doing this
there certainly has been times when an idea or two that we have
thought has been inconsistent with the teachings of the Catholic
Church, but this does not require the method that Frannie is
proposing. There is a difference between being actively aware of our
ideas, maintaining some of them in a more tentative manner than
others, and being honest with oneself concerning our presuppositions,
and completely allowing ourselves to be brainwashed through New Age
conditioning techniques!
- Saul on the Road to Damascus
Frannie states: “Be as empty as you
can be, because God requires the space, if we don't give space to God
He has no way for us to have an awareness of Him...”
God does not require the space at all.
God can and will speak to us when he determines to do so. Consider
the way that God approached Saul while he was on the road to
Damascus. “As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light
from heave flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a
voice say to him, 'Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?'” (Acts
9:3-4).
With Frannie it is usually the inverse
of what she is trying to teach you. To be sure, sometimes God uses a
still, small voice while we are reflecting upon nature, engaged in
prayer, or through our reading of Scripture, and sometimes he will
knock you off your horse. God does have a way for us to have an
awareness of Him which does not involve us being empty.
- Deny Ourselves
Matthew 16:24-25 “If anyone would
come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow
me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever
loses his life for me will find it.” Matthew 10:39: “Whoever
finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake
will find it.”
Frannie uses this latter verse in her
presentation to convey that we must be empty, and that we must let go
of our way. Certainly our sinful hearts could keep us from confessing
our sins and pridefully rejecting the blood of Christ for the
cleansing of our sins but this is not the manner in which Frannie
uses this verse. We are not to deny our nature as distinct creatures
of God in order to find the True Self, which is One with God. We are
not to deny the Christian revelation which has been preserved within
the Church in order to listen to another “voice of wisdom”. The
denial which Christ is talking about is a call to live a life of
holiness and to be set apart for God's exclusive use for works of
service and sharing the gospel that Christ died for our sins. It
would be far better for a Christian to give his life to the mouths of
lions than to live a life dedicated to the pursuit of lustful
pleasures, or worst, abandon our minds by dragging them through the
empty space of New Age spirituality.
- The Gentle Voice of God
Frannie states: “It will be God that
answers... And how do you know if it is God or not? As I said before
if what is said to you is different than the critical messages we
give to ourselves...”
“ if you are really hearing the voice
of God, God speaks in gentle, kind, and loving ways”
Jesus tells us that when he sends us
the Holy Spirit, “he will expose the guilt of the world...” (John
16:5). However, Frannie thinks that guilt is useless and is the mere
product of the egoic mind lying to us about who we are. However, it
is the opposite of what Frannie teaches. The prideful person says
that they have not sinned and therefore guilt has no place, while it
is the humble person with the contrite heart who seeks forgiveness
from the Father who truly knows how corrupt their heart has been.
Hearing from God will not always be
pleasant, in fact, if you spend any amount of time reading through
Scripture you will find plenty of moments when God disciplines his
children, rebukes them, and punishes them for their sins (Hebrews
12:5-11). Jesus in a fit of righteous indignation flipped tables in
the temple courts and often called the pharisees white-washed tombs,
among other things, and he was God incarnate. How are we supposed to
be convicted of our sins if we just categorize those thoughts as the
egoic mind lying to us in order to keep us living in the past,
keeping us from our perfect True Self? It is a dangerous teaching
that leads one to interpret the acts of the Holy Spirit as if it were
the acts of the egoic mind. This is blasphemy against the Holy
Spirit!
- The Extent of Frannie's Discernment
Frannie states: “Even when people
begin to hear God's voice the first thing they do is they question
whether or not its God, because they allow their mind to analyze what
their hearing, if they let go of the analyzing of what their hearing
and allow their hearts to come into the situation, they know its
God.”
As I demonstrated in a previous blog
post, the mind and the heart are both unified as core aspects of our
inner person. Why shouldn't we bring all of ourselves in order to
relate with God? Did God not design us in such a manner? Does he not
now restore us to the image and likeness of God?
Besides, why shouldn't we question a
voice that comes to us? Do you deny the existence of deceiving
spirits? Analyzing the message we are receiving is exactly how we
test the spirits! We have to have a way in order to determine whether
they are from God or not. And this test can not be subject to
feelings or mere personal experience. It must be consistent with
Scripture as it is understood by the Catholic Church.
“Dear friends, do not believe
every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God,
because many false prophets have gone out in to the world” (1 John
4:1).
"The Spirit clearly says that
in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving
spirits and things taught by demons" (1 Timothy 4:1).
Frannie states: “When we hear the
voice of God we know it because there is this peace that envelopes
you... its not a question of what you are thinking about it, it is a
question of what you are feeling when you hear it.”
A friend of mine who was once in the
New Age movement recounts a time when he was lying in his bed and a
voice called out his name. At the time he thought that it was the
Lord speaking to him and so he responded with openness. In the next
moment the spirit swirled over him and then landed on top of him. At
this point he experienced a state of peace envelope him which was
beyond words to describe. Despite all that seemed right with the
experience it turned out to be a deceptive spirit that led him
further into the New Age.
On one of the Rocky Mountain Views
interviews Martha Thompson asked Frannie: "How do you know you
are talking to God, how do you know you are not talking to the
devil?” After an ambiguous answer she says that "somehow in
your heart you know it is right". To the contrary, this is not
sufficient.
In the Book of Mormon it states: “And
when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would
ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things
are not true, and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real
intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto
you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy
Ghost ye may know the truth of all things” (Moroni 10:4-5).
No matter the content that is involved
in this subjective method of seeking a 'burning in the bosom'
experience it can not safely be used to determine the truthfulness of
a teaching. Certainly the Holy Spirit will guide us into all truth
(John 16:13a) and the two men on the road to Emmaus certainly felt
their hearts burning within them (Luke 24:32). But in the first
instance it was to the apostles that these words were spoken, the
foundation of the Church. It is to the Church that we look for that
truth to be preserved and expressed in its fullness. In the second
instance Jesus himself was interpreting the Old Testament in a manner
which revealed who He was to them, which was consistent with what the
apostles taught. This story would not have been included in the text
if it were not an authentic case, consistent with the teaching of the
Church.
Conclusion
Be wise in your discernment. Do not be
carried away by all kinds of strange teachings. There are
deceiving spirits who wish to teach you things which are contrary to
the Church, and use Scripture in order to do it. We must be on guard
and defend that faith which was once and for all given unto the
saints. Do not be afraid to stand up for the truth or be ashamed of
the gospel of Christ. “If anybody is preaching to you a gospel
other than what you accepted, let him be eternally anathema”
(Galatians 1:9). Pray that the false teachings within the Diocese of
Colorado Springs will no longer been seen as compatible with
Christianity, and especially for those who have been involved with
One Simple Voice, such as Richard Hanifen, Frannie Rose, and all
those who refer to themselves as her students. May God enlighten the
eyes of their hearts.
i Prophet/Prophet,
The Lost Teachings of Jesus 1: Missing Texts, Karma and
Reincarnation, pp. 115-16.
ii Prophet/Prophet,
The Lost Teachings of Jesus 2: Mysteries of the Higher Self,
p.62.
Friday, April 15, 2016
Examining Frannie #8: Thoughts upon New Age Influence and Propositions
Throughout this project it has been my main purpose to draw
out those elements within Frannie’s teachings which are derived from New Age
spirituality. Keep in mind that I do not reject anything that may be good and
true in anything that she says. While I wish to uncover her teachings for all
to see, this does not equate with the notion that everything she ever says is
heretical. I only wish to inform the reader of those propositions which are
contrary to Catholic theology.
The Effectiveness of
New Age Influence
One of the elements of the New Age which makes it so
attractive is that it contains elements of truth which are extremely helpful.
For instance, people who find themselves struggling with excessive anxiety may
find a sense of peace by learning how to enjoy the moment. Many people can
easily find a new sense of purpose in their life as a result of their influence
by New Age gurus. Sometimes this new sense of purpose can be so radical that it
takes a person from the brink of suicide to a new state of consciousness which
revolutionizes the entire paradigm of their lives. In fact, people of many
different faiths can connect to some aspects of the New Age movement and have a
false sense of kinship. Consider Oprah Winfrey and the impact that she has made
in the lives of people. Yet she is incredibly immersed in the New Age and
strongly promotes Eckhart Tolle. If such endeavors did not affect any change at
all then very few people would take it seriously.
The New Age movement thrives on elements of timeless truth
found in any number of religions. People who find themselves inspired by some
truthful element can very easily end up accepting the entire system of thought.
One has such a positive experience that they conclude that the context must be
true. They are like one drinking water from a cactus plant after dragging
themselves over a desert and become influenced by the hallucinogenic properties
that it might contain. Of those who are thoroughly committed to their
particular religious affiliation can attest to some life changing element
which, from their perspective, adds credence to the entire system of thought.
The religious experience serves as the orienting event for the acceptance of
teachings which approximated the occasion. However, from what we have observed
of human behavior such a subjective experience cannot be the basis for determining
truth since the systems of thought to which they adhere radically differ from one
another.
Self-Referential Incoherence
Some like Frannie Rose or Eckhart Tolle may say that they don’t
really have anything that they are teaching anyone, and that any exclusive
faiths claims are only manifestations of the egoic mind. One of the ways that
brainwashing works is to characterize all opposing views in a negative light,
such as linking all the world’s religions to the egoic mind. In one quick brush
they have painted everything other than what they teach to be something to
avoid. However, neither Frannie nor Tolle would be writing books and doing
seminars if they did not think that they have something to teach. And they
would not spend their time in these endeavors if they had no sense that they were
right, and opposing ideas were wrong. This
method is self-refuting because the principle is being applied to every idea
outside itself but never applied to itself in the same way. For example, one
could teach that everything that is taught in the New Age is a manifestation of
the egoic mind. In fact, let’s just say that the idea of religion being the
mere manifestation of the egoic mind is itself a manifestation of the egoic
mind and therefore no escape from the egoic mind is actually possible, and that
what Tolle proposes is just another illusion, another layer of lies that the
mind tells us. What is it about the propositions of New Age teaching that are
somehow exempt from being seen as just another worldview built upon a set of
presuppositions derived from the egoic mind?
Frannie’s Thought on
Unlearning
On one of the episodes of Rocky Mountain Views, hosted by
Martha Thompson, Frannie has stated the following:
“A lot of what we do is fill up our heads with stuff we've
learned from outside us which lays heavy and covers the wisdom that God is
giving deep inside us... so the more we have stuck in our heads the harder it
is for us to hear that wisdom... we have to literally clear some of that stuff
which I call unlearning.”
·
What does she mean by what we have “learned from
outside us”?
Since we are not God all learning takes place by observing
that which lies outside of ourselves. There is a distinction between that which
is on the other side of the room and that which is not part of our nature. If
we are listening to wisdom that God speaks to our hearts then it still lies
outside of our nature. Our substance is distinct from God, we were created from
nothing. God is not the core of our nature in any ontological manner, nor are
we an emanation from him, rather we are as distinct from God as a creator is
from his creation. Therefore we do not have innate ideas nor is there some
collective unconsciousness, a concept which Jung felt was proved by his
principle of synchronicity. A book by Jung by the name Synchronicity can be found in the reading list of Frannie’s book,
Fixing Frannie.
·
Why is it that she characterizes things that
we have learned from outside us in a negative light?
Well, consider this, if she can lead you to question
propositions which you hold to be true, then it will make you more
impressionable to accept a different set of propositions. This is effective because
not every proposition is maintained with the same level of certainty. If a
person who has had a strong religious experience and holds to a certain
proposition merely as a result of this subjective experience, then there would
most likely be no rational basis for holding said proposition. Likewise, even
those in the Catholic Church who have been poorly catechized from birth and
have had no deep religious experience will have a longing for something that
sounds different and have little to no rational basis for what they presently
maintain. There are a lot of factors which make people vulnerable to influence.
The problem with the method which Frannie proposes is that it
has an element of truth to it. If a person is never willing to question their
ideas then they will never have the opportunity to move from falsehood to that which
is true. For example, if a person believes that Frannie’s teachings are perfectly
compatible with Catholic theology then they can never see the absurdity of this
position if they were to never question it. Interestingly enough she couches
this method within some propositions of her own. And I think that we should
certainly draw these propositions into question:
1) “The mind is a wonderful tool, it does amazing things, but
leading us to God is not one of them”
2) “You let our minds lead us away from God, making Him
complex...they tell us what God is and what he isn't, and what he can't be...
our minds don't know anything about this our minds tell us what God thinks...
the mind knows nothing about the experience...”
3) “What you think about God is what your mind has made up
about God what you have heard from others about God... but is not your
experience.”
As you can see the entire premise that underlies the reason why
we are to empty the mind of propositions is based upon her propositions. We are
just exchanging one set of propositions for another.
A Whole World of
Theologians
One might be tempted to think that the entire world is broken
up into two different types of people: those who are theologians and those who
are not. To the contrary, we are all theologians. The question is not whether
or not one is a theologian but whether
we are a good theologian or a bad theologian. The same is true of philosophers. We are all
engaging in the task of theology every time we ask a question or propose a
proposition for consideration. For example, Frannie tells us that leading us to
God is not one of the things that the mind does. This is clearly an assessment
of how she views the role of the intellect among the other powers of the soul.
She also tells us that the heart is distinct from the mind, which is clearly an
assessment of how the powers of the soul relate to one another, if she views
the intellect as part of the soul at all. Those who have not given much thought
to these matters, nor considered the ‘heart’ in biblical theology as I had
demonstrated in my previous post, may be hearing ‘answers’ to theological
questions which they have never asked, and therefore have no way of determining
whether what is being said is true or not. People who are not familiar with a
particular area of thought are much more impressionable and open to suggestion.
It would be a mistake to think that everything that Frannie
teaches does not flow from a set of propositions which comprise a theology that
she is propagating every time she teaches. While she is asking us to empty our
minds, we would be doing so while following another set of propositions which
serve as the sufficient reason for the act. In such a method there is no real
emptying of the mind which is taking place since it is purposed activity as an
act of the will, a rational appetite which is an inclination to the good which
is presented to the intellect. Aquinas says, "an act of the will is nothing other than
an inclination which proceeds from an interior cognizing principle...."[i] Once
again, the entire premise that underlies the reason why she propose for
us to empty the mind of propositions is based upon her propositions.
Wednesday, April 13, 2016
Examining Frannie #7: The Heart in Biblical Theology
The Influence of Eckhart Tolle
A lot of Frannie's New Age
teachings are derived from the teachings of Eckhart Tolle. A brief glance
through his books The Power of Now: A
Guide to Spiritual Enlightenment, and A
New Earth: Awakening to Your Life’s Purpose will reveal the influence he
has had upon the spiritual formation of Frannie. If you want to better
understand her teachings then it is highly recommended that you become more
familiar with the New Age guru, Echhart Tolle. Here are a few points of
similarity:
1)
His story is radically similar to Frannie’s - Click Here
2) He
maintains a religious relativism which views all doctrine and exclusive claims
to truth as a manifestation of the egoic mind.
3) Although
Christianity may assist in higher levels of consciousness, it is essentially an
obstacle to a highest state of consciousness.
4) Eckhart explains that we must get our usual, conditioned, limited thoughts out of the way. We must become mentally silent. That silence leaves room for the voice of wisdom from within.
5) The egoic mind is a prison which keeps us from seeing the True Self.
6) Maintains a panentheistic position.
4) Eckhart explains that we must get our usual, conditioned, limited thoughts out of the way. We must become mentally silent. That silence leaves room for the voice of wisdom from within.
5) The egoic mind is a prison which keeps us from seeing the True Self.
6) Maintains a panentheistic position.
Marcia Montenegro, an expert on the New Age movement, has written two articles on Eckhart Tolle which is worthy of your consideration.
A New Earth, Ancient Deception: An Evaluation of Eckhart Tolle's A New Earth: Awakening to Your Life's Purpose
A New Earth and the Spiritually Elite: A Look at Eckhart Tolle's A New Earth: Awakening to Your Life's Purpose
A New Earth, Ancient Deception: An Evaluation of Eckhart Tolle's A New Earth: Awakening to Your Life's Purpose
A New Earth and the Spiritually Elite: A Look at Eckhart Tolle's A New Earth: Awakening to Your Life's Purpose
The term Satori in Buddhism refers to a state of consciousness of self-realization, that is, the True Self that is one with God.
Frannie’s error of the Perfect Heart
“You are originally unlimited
and perfect. Later, you take on
limitations.” “This is perfection. It is
the only part of you that is perfect. Your minds are not perfect; they never
will be, seeking for imperfection all the time.” “God pulls us back to the
union that we were born to. The truth is that your heart and God are together
as One. You began as a spark of God even
before you were born.” “This is who you were and what you sought until the mind
complicated things, because it always does.” “we’re going to be God, unlimited
mind.”
As we can see from the
statements above, Frannie maintains that the heart is the only part of
ourselves that is perfect since the heart and God are together as One. This
perfect part of us is the True Self which is pure and unlimited. However, this
view is a rejection of the teaching that the image of God within us has been
tarnished and disfigured and that we have an inclination towards sin, and that
this is a spiritual problem in the deepest recesses of the human heart. As a
result of the ancestral sin of Adam and Eve, our hearts are sinful and in need of
restoration.
For a brief glance at the
Catholic view of Original Sin see:
The approximation to truth
that we can find in her teaching is that prior to the fall of man, when our
first parents were in a state of Adamic perfection, they walked with God in the
cool of the day. But as a result of their sin, we are not born in a state of
Adamic perfection with sanctifying grace and the preternatural gifts. The
spiritual journey is not one of enlightenment where we come to the point of
realizing our true perfection which lies buried beneath the ego, rather it is a
journey of sanctification where we are restored to the image and likeness of
God.
Frannie’s Error of the Egoic Mind
Frannie teaches that its only
through conditioning and limitations which the mind takes on do we begin to live
out of a false self, an illusory sense of self created by the egoic mind. As a result the mind is viewed as “the enemy”. Throughout her presentation she continues to speak of mind in a
negative light, referring to it as something that has nothing to do with God,
is always critical, and always complicates things.
“...our minds are critical
they speak negatively they look for what's wrong in a situation... the mind is
always looking for the imperfection...”
“ ...let your mind let go”
“You let our minds lead us
away from God, making Him complex...they tell us what God is and what he isn't,
and what he can't be... our minds don't know anything about this our minds tell
us what God thinks... the mind knows nothing about the experience...”.
“the mind looks at it [beauty]
and just tries to make it different”
Such statements by Frannie are
consistent with the teachings of Eckhart Tolle, a New Age guru, and what we
might find in the writings of Eastern gurus[1]:
1)
“Do not listen to
your mind...”
2)
“...the mind is
the source of delusion.”
3)
“As long as the
mind is there, the real 'I am God' state cannot be experienced...”
4)
“Our mind leads
us astray.”
The approximation to truth
that we can find in her teaching here is that as a result of sin we have a tendency
to move away from our creator towards the creature. We can pridefully resist
the will of God in a spirit of self-determination. As a result of sin within
our hearts and what sin as done to the world in general we do pick up negative
messages and tend to live out scripts from early childhood. We can easily come
to accept things that are not true about ourselves. As a result of these
effects it can be difficult to become the best version of ourselves. God wants
to restore us as much as possible on this side of heaven, restoring us in the
image and likeness of God.
The Heart in Biblical Theology
לֵב is the Hebrew term that is most often translated as ‘heart’ in our English translations of the Old Testament. The heart is the seat of the will, thought, intellect, and emotions, all those aspects of the soul which we usually think of as the inner person.
"However, in its abstract meanings, “heart” became the richest biblical term for the totality of man’s inner or immaterial nature. In biblical literature it is the most frequently used term for man’s immaterial personality functions as well as the most inclusive term for them since, in the Bible virtually every immaterial function of man is attributed to the “heart”.” By far the majority of the usages of leb refer either to the inner or immaterial nature in general or to one of the three traditional personality functions of man; emotion, thought, or will."[2]
In the LXX, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, לֵב is translated to καρδία, which is the dominant Greek word found underling ‘heart’ in our English translations of the New Testament. καρδία likewise has the same range of meaning as we found for לֵב
"That the heart is the centre of the inner life of man and the source of seat of all the forces and functions of soul and spirit is attested in many different ways in the NT…
a. In
the heart dwell feelings and emotions, desires and passions.
b.
The heart is the seat of understanding, the source of thought and reflection.
c.
The heart is the seat of the will, the source of resolved.
d. Thus the heart is supremely the one centre in man to which God turns, in which the religious life is rooted, which determines moral conduct"[3]
Essentially, every faculty of the soul such as passions, the will, and the intellect are all seated in the heart. Additionally, there are also many biblical passages which convey this same perspective. For example, Jesus tells us that “For out of the heart come evil thoughts…” (Matthew 15:19).
Likewise, Jesus tells us to
love the Lord our God with all our mind. The Greek used here is dianoia which
means... “Mind, thinking, understanding; this is a part of the inner person
that thinks and processes information into understanding, including the making
of choices, the seat of which is the heart.”[4]
The True Mind and Heart Challenge
Ever since I became a
Christian in 2000 I have experienced one of the most common struggles of the
Christian faith. Like John Wesley I have known the revelation of God having
studied theology and scripture for many, many years. A great danger lies in the
mere intellectual assent to the propositions of Christianity. A pagan
philosopher can be fully convinced that reason has proven the existence of God,
yet in his heart he does not believe it to be so. Likewise, one can be fully
versed in Christian theology but never experience the transformative power of
that blood which cleanses us from all sin. Our mind has it right, we know what
God has revealed, but our heart has not yet come to faith. He is a man that
still has an unbelieving heart though he knows the truth as God wills for any
of us.
“…who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the
truth” (1 Timothy 2:4).
Listen to the conversation
that takes place between John Wesley and Peter Bohler staring at 23:48. And if by chance view
the film in its entirety.
The Role of Reason in the Christian Faith
Perhaps the best source for
anyone as it relates to the importance of reason is the encyclical Fides et
Ratio written by John Paul II.
In Fides et Ratio, John Paul
II refers to theology as “rational discourse about God”, a description which
epitomizes how deeply the two are in relation with one another. What is
revealed can and is expressed as rational content otherwise it would be unintelligible.
Reason is what enables us to think intelligently concerning the content of
revelation. If most of the content of revelation is compatible with what can be
known through reason alone then we can be reasonably certain of the
truthfulness of those aspects of revelation which can only be known through
faith. As it pertains to concepts which can be known by faith alone it is
reasonable to believe them in as much as they are consistent with what is
known, such that what is contrary to what is believed can be shown to be false,
and what is believed can be shown not to be absurd.
·
The Nature of Philosophy
Philosophy is the attempt
to understand reality, everything that exists whether material or immaterial,
through the use of reason alone apart from divine revelation. The inspiration
of doing philosophy is borne out of the basic human desire to know existence
through the senses, and enter into reasoned discourse from these effects to
understand their underlying causes. Essentially philosophy is interested in
ultimate causes in determining the precise nature of reality. The use of
philosophy is logically expressed by deductive reasoning where one starts with
a major and minor premise and reasons to a conclusion through the use of a
syllogism, “...which is the culmination of reasoning.”[5]
Through the light of
reason alone the intellect can discover many truths such that God exists, that
there is only one God, and the nature of his attributes. As an independent
discipline, philosophy serves as a bridge between every intellect engaging the
same reality and making the same observations through sense experience. Its
limitation rests in the fact that it is only concerned with knowledge that can
be discovered through the use of reason alone and therefore can not inform the
philosopher of those things which can only be known through divine revelation.
The possibility exists that one could discover many truths concerning reality
through the use of reason alone, however, there are immaterial realities that
are not as evident or immediately known by the intellect.
·
The Nature of Theology
Theology encompasses
matters concerning revelation and its application. The “theos” concerns 'God',
and the “logy” part refers to the 'study of'. In other words, theology might be
defined as words from God, words about God, and words towards God. This would
include every aspect of revealed religion from His divine disclosure, our
reasoned discourse concerning Him, to the liturgical life. Revelation contains
elements of reality which can only be known through the light of faith, such as
the incarnation, and the trinitarian nature of God. Since divine revelation not
only contains knowledge which can be known through the light of faith alone it
therefore overlaps philosophy in what can be discovered through the natural
light of reason. Even though truths which
are not mysterious in nature can be known by reason alone, revelation
enlightens the intellect to grasp those truths more readily. As grace builds
upon nature, so does faith build upon reason.
·
The Use of Philosophy for Theology
The more pertinent
question regarding the relationship between faith and reason concerns the
merits of studying philosophy for use in theology. St. Thomas Aquinas, in his Exposition
of Boethius's On the Trinity, explains three uses for philosophy in the
study of theology.[6] 1)
Philosophy establishes a rational basis for understanding those truths which
can be known of the faith, such as that God exists and that there is only one
God. This rational demonstration serves as a preparation for the study of
theology. 2) Philosophy can be used to explain those truths which can be known
by faith alone through the use of similitudes, such as when Augustine utilizes
examples from philosophy to elucidate the trinity in his De trinitate.[7]
3) Philosophy can be employed to repudiate objections to the faith; to
demonstrate the falsity of what is claimed against truths revealed by God. In
each case, philosophy serves the purpose of demonstrating the reasonableness of
faith and its compatibility with reality.
Conclusion
The heart of the matter is
that Frannie’s ideas are not informed by Catholic teaching. Her presentations
are attempts to indoctrinate Catholics and whoever may attend her retreats with
New Age spirituality. One could simply save their money and read a book written
by Eckhart Tolle because you will be exposed to many of the same ideas. Like
Tolle, Frannie Rose has become a New Age guru. Her students are not being
educated in the truths of Christianity nor are those who become influenced by
her. Take serious consideration of these matters and don’t allow yourselves to
be deceived by a rhetoric as if what she teaches is compatible with Catholic
teaching. I would advise you to empty your mind of everything that she is teaching you, and to listen to that voice of reason that is beckoning you to the teachings of the Catholic Church.
[1] Goodrick, E. W., Kohlenberger, J. R., & Swanson, J. A. (1999). Zondervan NIV exhaustive concordance. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan Pub. House., 1541.
[2] Brian Mullady, Philosophy for Theologians: Lesson Five: Logic (Cromwell, CT: Holy Apostles College & Seminary, 2015), 1.
[3] Ralph McInerny, A First Glance at St. Thomas Aquinas: A Handbook for Peeping Thomists, (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press 1990), 18-19.
[4] Ralph McInerny, St. Thomas Aquinas (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1982), 168.
[5]John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Encyclopedia of New Age Beliefs (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1996), 228.
[6] Harris, R. L., Archer, G. L., & Waltke, B. K. (1980). Theological wordbook of the Old Testament. Chicago: Moody Press. 466.
[7] In Kittel, G., Bromiley, G. W., & In Friedrich, G. (1964). Theological dictionary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans. 611-612.
Monday, April 11, 2016
Examining Frannie #6: An Appeal to Men of Plain Reason
Examining the Perspective of Richard
Hanifen
Now that we have definitely
demonstrated the false doctrines within the teachings and writings of
Frannie Rose we now turn to an important question: Why is there any
concern at all if her teachings are perfectly orthodox? In order
words, if the teachings of One Simple Voice was completely consistent
with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, then why are there
members of the Catholic faithful finding errors?
Richard Hanifen would lead us to
believe that Frannie's teachings are not rooted in the concepts and
language of New Age spirituality. However,
- he is not familiar with the history of the New Age movement,
- nor is he familiar with the deceptiveness and methods of how New Age ideas infiltrate the Church,
- nor is he familiar with the dangers of occultism and the possibility of demonic influence,
- nor is he familiar with the concepts and language of New Age spirituality in order to properly identify it,
- nor does he seem to be concerned at all that Frannie's history demonstrates New Age influence upon her religious formation,
- nor does he seem concerned that Frannie has stated that the greatest influence upon her life was Deepak Chopra, a New Age guru,
- nor does he seem concerned that Frannie consistently quotes New Age gurus and dissenters.
Therefore his
attempts to lead people to accept the orthodoxy of Frannie's teaching
is incredibly misguided. While he may have a clear conscience at the
moment this does not make him innocent in these matters. At some
level he must be aware that there is an incongruity between his
perspective and the evidences that have been presented to him. As is
characteristic of many adherents to cults, he does not seem willing
to follow truth where it may lead him in an open and honest
appraisal, even if that means he must recant his present perspective.
Maintaining a position without any evidence while rejecting evidence
to the contrary is entirely unreasonable. In this discussion, the
burden of proof has been upon us to demonstrate that the teachings of
Frannie contain content and language steeped in New Age spirituality,
and this is precisely what we have proven.
“They will turn their ears away
from the truth and turn aside to myths” (2 Timothy 4:4).
It is the
responsibility of those members of Christ who are familiar with these
matters to assist the other members in the Church to understand them.
For each member has their own gift and no member can say to the other
'we don't need you' (1 Corinthians 12:21).
“It was he who gave some to be
apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be
pastors and teachers.. so that the body of Christ may be built up
until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son
of God... Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by
the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching...”
(Ephesians 4:11-14).
Instead, Hanifen has refused to engage
us in public conversation and has offered a definitive statement on
the matter. Originally he was willing to discuss these issues with
some within the diocese but ceased those interactions once he
realized that people were not going to agree with him, yet he offered
none of us any substantial evidence for anything he claimed. As is
characteristic of many adherents to cults, he is only willing to have
a conversation with you if he can persuade you to his opinion, or if
you do not confuse him with the facts.
“I appeal to you, brothers, in the
name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another
so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be
perfectly united in mind and thought” (1 Corinthians 1:10 ).
It may be incredibly difficult for some
people to understand how someone could have served as a bishop for as
long as Hanifen had and yet be incapable of shepherding the flock of
Christ in his diocese away from New Age spirituality. Since he has
fully embraced the teachings of Frannie Rose he has demonstrated to
us that he is not capable of distinguishing between Catholic theology
and New Age spirituality.
This is not difficult to consider,
however, given the liberal state of the Catholic Church in America.
Since Vatican II many liberal agendas have swept through the Church
in the name of progress, renewal, and ecumenism. Many priests and
bishops have been swept up in the wake of it. Even within the diocese
of Saginaw, in Michigan, this liberalism flourishes with a ferocity
where priests pride themselves as non-conformists. While seeking
spiritual direction, I met with a priest who said to me during that
meeting: “Many of the things that the Church teaches us is
monkey-rod.” After being called a “lituri-cop” and “pharisee”
in the confessional, I no longer sought any spiritual direction
within that diocese.
The Sense of the Faithful
As for the teachings of Frannie, we
have not found errors because we have misunderstood the teachings of
One Simple Voice, but because these teachings do not pass the test of
the sensus fidei. We have difficulty with the teachings of Frannie
because what she is propagating within the diocese is contrary to
Catholic teaching. If her teachings were consistent with Catholic
teaching then those of us with Master degrees in Theology from
several different respected Catholic schools would be able to confirm
it. Our education is from well-known, educational institutions
faithful to the Magisterium such as Franciscan University of
Stuebenville, Holy Apostles College & Seminary, and the St.
Augustine Institute. We have applied our intellectual acumen to this
project as deeply as we would to the rigors of academia, with the
same passion with which we have catechized Catholics for years, and
with the same meticulous diligence as we have to defending the truths
of the Catholic Church. As a result of our collective expertise in
Catholic theology and New Age spirituality we have been able to
identify that the teachings of Frannie Rose do in fact contain
concepts and language that is deeply entrenched in New Age
spirituality.
“The whole body of the faithful...
cannot error in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in
the supernatural appreciation of faith (sensus fidei) on the part of
the whole people, when 'from the bishops to the last of the
faithful.; they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and
morals.”
“By this appreciation of the
faith, aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth, the People of
God, guided by the sacred teaching authority
(Magisterium),...receives...the faith, once for all delivered to the
saints....The People unfailingly adheres to this faith, penetrates it
more deeply with right judgment, and applies it more fully in daily
life” (Lumen Gentium 12 quoted in CCC 92-93).
The teachings which Frannie is
propagating within the diocese is contrary to the 'universal consent'
of the Church. What she teaches is not just another expression of
God's revelation, as is the case with the theological method and
doctrinal expressions of the Christian East. Nor is it an allowed
theological tradition which Catholics are free to consider, as is the
case with Molinism or Thomism. Rather it contains concepts and
language which are deeply rooted in New Age spirituality and
therefore constitutes material heresy.
The Church teaches us the Revelation
of God
One might be tempted to use the
statement in 1 John 2:27 to teach that we do not need to be taught
the revelation of God by the Church.
“As for you, the anointing you
received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach
you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that
anointing is real, not counterfeit – just as it has taught you,
remain in him.”
Consider the following:
- there is a counterfeit anointing that leads people into spiritual error as we have seen with passages concerning deceptive spirits and things taught by demons (1 Timothy 4:1).
- those whom John warns us against are those teaching Gnosticism, a kind of esoteric knowledge that is needed in order to supplement the teachings of the apostles. Importantly, part of the New Age perspective is that the Church is antiquated. That it is an old form of traditional religion that is just one of many other forms that have been conceived in the minds of men. As a mere vehicle of God we need to supplement it with a deeper spirituality and the New Age is proposed as the solution. And this perspective is often effective; a form of spiritualism that can draw in dry souls that only have a form of religion but are dissatisfied with organized structures. As we have demonstrated, Frannie's statements are fully consistent with this New Age agenda.
“Turn away from... the opposing
ideas of what is falsely called knowledge, which some have professed
and in so doing have wandered from the faith” (1 Tim 6:20b-21).
The
readers to which John wrote were led by the Spirit's ministry through
the apostles, which was not only adequate but the only reliable
truth. It is obvious that what is said here does not negate
everything that Scripture teaches us about human teachers (Mat
28:20; 1co 12:28; eph 4:11; col 3:16; 1 ti 4:11; 2 ti 2:2,24). In
fact, John had expected his readers to follow his teachings through
this letter in this regard. Just three verses earlier it states: “See
that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you” (1 John
2:24a). It was God's revelation through the Incarnation of Christ
and as taught by the apostles that was taught from the beginning.
“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which
we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands
have touched – this we proclaim concerning the Word of life” (1
John 1:1). We must fix our eyes upon Christ as He is taught in
our Church and not follow any other spirits or wind of teaching. This
is why we must use Church teaching to help guide us in the
discernment process when it comes to listening to spirits or anyone
attempting to teach us anything concerning God.
“Dear friends, do not believe
every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God,
because many false prophets have gone out in to the world” (1 John
4:1).
“We are from God, and whoever
knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen
to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of
falsehood” (1 John 4:6).
The Voice of
Christ in His Church
As Catholics we are to listen to the
Church and not follow after the teachings of one who has been proven
to teach New Age spirituality. It is to the Church that we must
cleave in these matters and turn from those attempts to improve upon
the faith in the same manner as Gnosticism once taught.
“...this mystery, which for ages
past was kept hidden in God, who created all things. His intent was
that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be
made known...” (Eph 3: 9b-10a).
“...the church of the living God,
the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15b).
And it is the role of the Bishop to
maintain this same message which we have heard from the beginning,
defend it, and address those who do otherwise. We should expect
Bishop Sheridon to speak out against these errors within his diocese
despite the political implications it will have concerning those who
have been influenced by Richard Hanifen. It is always a sad state
within the Church when a former bishop falls victim to New Age
spirituality or any other form of heresy. However, despite how long
Hanifen had served as a bishop, despite his popularity among
Catholics, despite his continued influence within the diocese, it is
the responsibility of the Bishop to silence the errors within his
diocese without fear.
It is my prayer that our Bishop will be
as bold as he should be in order to combat these false teachings
within his diocese. I wish for him to stand before God with a clear
conscience and hear those wonderful words: “Well done, good and
faithful servant” (Matt 25:21, 23).
“We are not trying to please men
but God, who tests our hearts” (1 Thess 2:4b).
“He must hold firmly to the
trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage
others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it... they must
be silenced, because they are... teaching things they ought not to
teach...” (Titus 1:9, 11)
Because of the false teachings which
Frannie is propagating within the diocese she must be warned by the
Bishop to cease her efforts in spreading these New Age errors. In
Titus 3:10 Paul tells Titus to “warn a divisive person”. The
Greek that underlies the term 'divisive' is hairetikos. While only
used here in the entire New Testament, it has been used as a
technical term within the Church: heretic. Therefore it is the
responsibility of the Bishop to warn those teaching heresy and to
warn those against its errors.
An Appeal to Reason
We do not make this
appeal:
- on the basis of subjective experience since such can be obtained from New Age spirituality,
- nor on the basis of the fruit of a ministry since both growth and positive effects can be found within New Age infiltrations of the Church,
- nor on the basis of mere assertions since anyone can state a proposition,
- nor on the basis of trust that we may have in a particular person since they can be misguided.
Rather, we appeal to reason with substantive evidence. We have offered a detailed comparative analysis demonstrating the content and language of New Age spirituality with the teachings of Frannie Rose.
If a person has found their spiritual life 'enriched' through One Simple Voice then it is now time for you to abandon your attachment to Frannie Rose and Richard Hanifen in order to reject the influence of the content and language of New Age spirituality. And I ask that you begin to pray for each of them since it will only be by the grace of God that either of them will recant their positions and cease teaching these heretical ideas in the diocese.
Saturday, April 9, 2016
Examining Frannie #5: A Response to Richard Hanifen
Extending Opportunity to Frannie
Rose
On 4/1/2016 I had reached out to
Frannie Rose through her website www.onesimplevoice.org
as an attempt to give her and the ministry One Simple Voice an
opportunity to publicly explain their teachings in a manner that is
consistent with Catholic theology in order to address the concerns of
many within the Diocese of Colorado Springs. Below is the text that I
sent to her in that message. (Minor editing has been used to better
incorporate it into a blog format.)
Frannie,
I have been approached by some in the
Diocese of Colorado Springs who are concerned over certain elements
in your teachings. After viewing several hours of video listening to
you talk I have grown concerned as well. From what I can see you have
been influenced by New Age thinking in the past and perhaps some of
this has bled over into your ministry. Presently it is my plan to
speak against your ministry and to create video presentations
documenting things that you have said and evaluating them within the
context of Catholic teaching. I hope that I am wrong in my
conclusions but from what I have seen you appear to either maintain
the following errors, or at least use language that makes it
difficult to determine that you don't. What I would like to do, if
you are willing, since I can work very hard to assist in exonerating
you against specific claims is to provide you a list of questions as
a written interview.
Presently my view is that you have
carried over New Age thought into your spiritual journey:
- It appears that you reject the unique revelation of God in the sole incarnation of Christ by a) stating that 'getting it right' is not the point, and b) that we are to empty our minds of what we have been told about God through the Church, and c) you have referred to an old way, or traditional religion, as if you have something unique to offer that the Church does not.
- It also appears that at some level, in some way, we are God, at least in a pantheistic manner. That your language that we are a “spark” of God is a way of conveying this.
- That perhaps you reject the Church's teaching on original sin since you spoke of how this doctrine can be distorted on The Mystic Show, though I would be interested in what you think would be a distortion.
- And that you seem to think that we are originally perfect at birth, though you speak nothing of the loss of sanctifying grace and the resulting effects.
- It seems as if you maintain an extreme apophaticism where you seem to be saying that we can not know anything about God or affirm anything concerning Him which runs contrary to Catholic teaching.
- This seems to fit in your mind/heart conflict, a model, which has some merit such that "the carnal mind can not submit to God", as it relates to the unregenerate, but you seem to press it beyond these limits and apply it in a way that demonizes the mind, and think of the heart as pure even though it can be incredibly deceitful, and is the source of our sinfulness, whereas you seem to place the error in the mind as limitations we pick up during our life.
- You also seem to teach emptying the mind while engaging in prayer with God in a manner that is rejected by Vatican documents.
Now, I don't want you to respond to
this perspective at this time. If you are interested in a written
interview then I will take the time to write up the questions and
then you can take your time to lay out your responses in as much
detail as you need to unequivocally convey your exact adherence to
the Roman Catholic Church.
Thank you for your time and I hope that
this message finds you well.
Response by Richard Hanifen
On 4/8/2016 I received an email from
Sean S. Hennessy with a pdf image of a typed letter by Richard
Hanifen. The text is reproduced below.
Dear Mr. Chambers
Frannie Rose has kept me informed of
your public expressions of criticism of her work and writings. As the
Executive Director of One Simple Voice I find such criticisms are
directed as well to our work.
I must conclude that you and others
with whom you agree are operating from the premise that her story and
witness are false and that our ministry is based upon a falsehood.
In view of the fact that our premises
are opposite to one another I see no further benefit to you or our
ministry engaging in further conversation.
I ask that you discontinue any further
effort to discredit Frannie Rose's reputation and the work of One
Simple Voice.
I leave you with a passage from the
Acts of the Apostles, 5:38, in which this advice was given to the
Jewish leaders who operated from the false premise that the Apostles'
teaching was dangerous and should be stopped.
“For if this endeavor or this
activity is of human origin, it will destroy itself. But if it comes
from God, you will not be able to destroy them; you may even find
yourselves fighting against God.”
+Richard C. Hanifen
Bishop Emeritus of the Diocese of
Colorado Springs
Executive Director
A Call to Public Dialogue: A
Response to Richard Hanifen
The purposes of my first letter was 1)
to inform you that there are two different perspectives within the
diocese, and 2) give Frannie Rose the opportunity to explain her
teachings to those who are concerned.
“Always be prepared to give an
answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that
you have” (1 Peter 3:15a, b).
It is
fair to expect a reasonable explanation for what she teaches,
especially since we can clearly demonstrate her errors. If we are in
error then she must demonstrate that her concepts and language is not
New Age. Why wouldn't we expect this in light of the evidence?
That there are two different premises
is precisely the reason why public dialogue must occur. We are not
the Sanhedrin resisting men teaching the resurrection of Christ. We
are the Church who have identified New Age teachings and are
attempting to defend what Christ has entrusted to us.
“Even from your own number men
will arise and distort the truth in order to draw disciples after
them” (Acts 20:25).
As a result of her teachings,
controversy has broken out within the diocese between those who can
not discern the New Age influence and those who have definitively
demonstrated the errors in her teachings, both in the concepts and
the language used. The dissension within the diocese has been created
by the seeds of her dissent from Catholic teaching. We have simply
identified the errors and are calling for public action. False
teachings have no place within the Catholic Church. The Faithful in
the Diocese of Colorado Springs must be warned of these errors. This
can only occur if we are all properly catechized in the theology of
the Church, and the New Age distinctives within the teachings of
Franne Rose exposed.
“I appeal to you, brothers, in the
name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another
so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be
perfectly united in mind and thought” (1 Corinthians 1:10 ).
In order to follow Paul's advice we
must publicly address the growing divisions between those who follow
the teachings of Frannie Rose and those who are faithful to the
teachings of the Catholic Church. As long as her teachings can not be
demonstrated to be without error then they must be publicly resisted
by the Catholic faithful and censured by the Church.
Presently we are not “perfectly
united in mind and thought” concerning the teachings of Frannie
Rose. We must have an action plan on how we are going to address
these errors in the most charitable manner possible which achieves
complete resolution of the situation.
As a former bishop you must understand
that it is the responsibility of the bishop to properly shepherd the
flock of Christ within the diocese faithfully according to Catholic
theology. There are Catholic faithful who are greatly disturbed by
the teachings of Frannie Rose and none of us will be placated by mere
assertions by you or Frannie Rose that your teachings are not
influenced by New Age spirituality. Nor will we be impressed if her
teachings are effective in leading people into a subjective
experience. Merely stating propositions is not a proper demonstration
of truth. Nor does a positive experience determine the truthfulness
of the context. I can simple assert: The teachings of Frannie Rose
are consistent with New Age thought. However, this would be an
inappropriate response to public concern. This is why we have gone to
great lengths to publicly demonstrate our concerns. You can no longer
hide behind your previous reputation as a former bishop, you can no
longer rely on your historical influence upon the Catholic faithful
within the diocese. I call for a public response that thoroughly and
responsibly addresses the concerns of the Catholic faithful until we
are perfectly satisfied.
What is there to lose? If you are
correct, then Frannie's teachings are better understood and we are
silenced. If we are correct, then there is great risk to you
personally and your reputation for allowing yourself to naively be
deceived by New Age thought, and have actively taught it to others.
Positively, people will be better catechized by Catholic teaching,
and better informed on how to identify New Age influence within the
Church.
“The Church, 'the pillar and
bulwark of the truth,' faithfully guards 'the faith which was once
for all delivered to the saints.'” CCC 171
It is the responsibility of the
Catholic faithful to be able to demonstrate our faithfulness to the
Magisterium whenever we are being asked about what we teach. It is by
this dialogue that we succeed in contending for the faith. We must
address the New Age errors within the Diocese of Colorado Springs. If
adherents to One Simple Voice are unwilling or incapable of
demonstrating the orthodoxy of Frannie's teachings then this ministry
should be censured.
Personally I would prefer that Frannie,
and others influenced by One Simple Voice, would recant the errors
you have taught, and infuse the ministry with real Catholic content
that is immersed in the language of Eastern Catholic spirituality.
The purpose of my future blog posts will assist One Simple Voice in
ridding itself of New Age influence and infusing its purpose with a
theology and language that is authentically Christian. As it is, I
have definitively demonstrated that the present condition of One
Simple Voice is not acceptable and utilizes concepts and language
from New Age spirituality. This is absolutely undeniable. If Frannie
does not know the difference then it will only assist her on her
spiritual journey in the Catholic Church and cleanse herself of her
previous religious commitments. If Frannie does know the difference
but insists in attempting to push these concepts and language upon us
in an attempt to legitimize them then these efforts will be exposed
for what they are and will continue to be resisted within the
diocese.
"The Spirit clearly says that
in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving
spirits and things taught by demons" (1 Timothy 4:1).
Therefore we must be able to properly
discern what we think is the voice of God in order to avoid
deception. We are not dealing with mere human effort in this regard.
New Age spirituality grows not because it is from God but because it
is more than a human enterprise. New Age ministries grow, and succeed
in their infiltration of the Church, because of a spiritual influence
that is subtle and deceptive. The first level of influence is
extremely difficult to detect by those who are not familiar with this
phenomenon. The initial deception is not going to be overt enough for
everyone to recognize it. It will be extremely subtle in working its
concepts and language into what is generally acceptable, even though
it is contrary to the faith. This is the nature of deception. It is
the responsibility of the Catholic faithful who can identify these
errors to speak out against them and to inform others so they can see
the discrepancies as well. And this is precisely what I determine to
do.
Of those who are concerned, we are not
uneducated, nor uninformed concerning New Age spirituality. We are
highly educated and intimately familiar with the differences between
New Age spirituality and Catholic theology to a degree which has
allowed us to discern what we are seeing with One Simple Voice. And
we implore you to listen to our concerns and to take them seriously.
This is not the time to disregard our expertise and sweep our
concerns under the rug, but to allow other members of the Church to
assist you out of a New Age deception. By the grace of Christ this
will be possible.
Well respected Catholics have made
attempts to better inform the Church concerning these tactics. People
like Fr. Mitch Pacwa (author of Catholics and the New Age),
Moira Noonan (former New Ager and author of Ransomed from
Darkness: The New Age, Christian Faith and the Battle for Souls),
and Dan Burke (EWTN, director of “The National Catholic Register,”
founder and director of “SpiritualDirection.com” and the Avila
Institute for Spiritual Formation, and considered to be an authority
on the Saints and the spiritual/mystical theology of the Church as
well as the misunderstandings, heresies, and New Age infiltration)
are on the front line of defense against New Age influences.
“For the time will come when men
will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own
desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to
say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears
away from the truth and then aside to myths” (2 Timothy 4:3-4).
For the appeal we
make does not spring from error or impure motives, nor are we trying
to trick you. Nor are we misguided in our observations. Whatever your
personal feelings in this regard may be, whatever your affinity for
Frannie Rose, no matter what subjective experiences you may have had,
we implore you to examine our demonstration as objectively as
possible. We implore you to see that which is contrary to the sound
doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God,
which he entrusted to us. We are to guard that good deposit which was
entrusted to us, to guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who
lives in us. We must hold fast to the faith and speak out against
that which is contrary to Catholic teaching.
We have
definitively demonstrated that Frannie's teaching contains content
and language which is directly derived from New Age spirituality.
Therefore we must diligently avoid any form of false ecumenicism,
speak the truth in love, and be on our guard so that we may not be
carried away by the errors of New Age spirituality. We can not simply
do nothing. False teaching will spread like gangrene and as a result
of it people will subtly and slowly wander away from the truth. That
is why it is so important for us to demonstrate the differences
between Catholic theology and New Age spirituality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Another Letter to a Jehovah's Witness
Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ His only begotten Son, who is eternally begotten of the Father from al...
-
John Wesley, like many prominent Protestant leaders such as Zwingli [1] , Luther [2] , and Calvin [3] , firmly maintained that Mary was a p...
-
The purpose of this post is to offer a comparative analysis between the Roman Catholic Church and John Wesley as it pertains to the meaning...
-
The following is a brief reflection upon the third part of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed as it pertains to the Holy Spirit. Since it ...