Examining Frannie #10: Reading List from Fixing Frannie

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.

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.

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.

---

[i]  ST IaIIae.6.4.

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.

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

While on The Mystic Show, when Franne was asked by the host if she was awakened or enlightened, which in the context of that show is always rooted in New Age thought and Eastern religion responded: "I was all of that... I was awakened, I was enlightened... some of the experiences where like the Buddhist term satori..." 

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:

1) The Guilt of Original Sin

2) The Nature of Original Sin

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

As a result of Frannie’s view concerning the perfect heart and the egoic mind there exists a heart/mind conflict which is contrary to biblical theology. Therefore, as we listen to Frannie share her teachings with us we are not being presented with Christian teaching, rather she is indoctrinating us in the New Age thought of Eckhart Tolle. While there may be language and concepts that are similar to what we would understand from a Christian perspective, as I shared concerning the approximation of truth, we have to understand that everything she says is contextualized within this system of thought which is contrary to Catholic teaching.

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.

On the Relationship between Faith and Reason 

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.

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,

1. he is not familiar with the history of the New Age movement,
2. nor is he familiar with the deceptiveness and methods of how New Age ideas infiltrate the Church,
3. nor is he familiar with the dangers of occultism and the possibility of demonic influence,
4. nor is he familiar with the concepts and language of New Age spirituality in order to properly identify it,
5. nor does he seem to be concerned at all that Frannie's history demonstrates New Age influence upon her religious formation,
6. nor does he seem concerned that Frannie has stated that the greatest influence upon her life was Deepak Chopra, a New Age guru,
7. 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:

1. 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).
2. 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:

1. on the basis of subjective experience since such can be obtained from New Age spirituality,
2. 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,
3. nor on the basis of mere assertions since anyone can state a proposition,
4. 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.

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.