Examining Frannie #13: An Appeal to Frannie Rose

Message from Frannie Rose

Dear Corey

Recently I noticed on my facebook page that you had been trying to contact me for some time. I wasn’t aware your message was there until today, because you are not listed as one of my facebook friends. Your letter mentioned that you wanted to me to contact you.

Your postings were brought to my attention last year and I found them judgmental and unkind. Theologians use theology to help to support understanding, not as a weapon. Your postings were immediately accusatory and I felt bullied by someone whom has no understanding of my intention or what I speak.

There are many items you discussed with the premise that I am guilty until proven innocent. Your stories about what I have spoken and written are incorrect. Much of what you perceived were assumptions and perceptions based entirely upon your own premise that I am new age. Given your worldview lens, you saw what you wanted to see because you have no understanding of the concepts I was discussing.

To add to your misconceptions, on the youtube that you analyzed, behind me was always a screen with a quote from a Christian mystic that I was discussing. You did not see the screen or the quote because it was not seen on the video. You would have had to be present at the retreat to see it. However you commented on what I said, labeling it heresy. On one of those quotes you wrote a whole paragraph, which was a quote by Teresa of Avila – “Teach me dear God, all that you know." You lashed out into a whole tirade about this.

It saddens me as a new Catholic to experience first hand your lack of faith, your lack of kindness, and compassion and by your assumption that I am evil because you have not experienced what I have. I invite you to look more deeply into yourself to find these things. For surely your unkind and judgmental way of being has become slanderous and despotic and serves no humane purpose.

Perhaps God will help you to understand that when you approach human beings with kindness, compassion and love, you receive these things as well as their cooperation.

I will pray for this.

In His peace,

Frannie Rose

My Response to Frannie Rose

Frannie Rose,

I think that given the time and effort that people have put forth in order to express their concerns it may be prudent for you to actually address the following letter which I have written to the bishop recently. Since it is thorough and well-documented I will not reproduce points from it here for the sake brevity. http://thecatholicwesleyan.blogspot.com/2017/03/

I think that people would be more interested in a detailed response to our concerns instead of simply stating that we are misunderstanding you, or simply stating that your teachings are orthodox, or that you think that our concerns have been expressed in a judgmental or unkind manner, or whether you think we have a strong Catholic faith, or whether you think we share the same religious experiences. Therefore, we eagerly anticipate your thorough, detailed, and well-documented responses to each of our points and evidences which we have put forth.

To be sure, I have not made mere assumptions concerning your teachings since all of my writings have been based in a detailed analysis of what you have taught and written and it is on this documented basis that I have determined that your teachings are incompatible with the Catholic Faith.

Quoting a Christian Mystic in reference to your teachings does not mean that your teachings are compatible with what that mystic was saying in the broader perspective of their Catholic faith. It is very easy to misunderstand the mystics particularly because there are “catholic” materials that are published and influence a great number of Catholics, especially writings from dissenters such as Richard Rohr and Thomas Keating. Dissent and liberalism within the Catholic Church is alive and well, and many of these would lead you to believe that the writings of Eckhart Tolle are compatible with Catholic thought, etc. But there are those that work diligently to make sure that Catholics understand the true Catholic faith and not other versions of it proposed by dissent. Our concern is expressed as clearly as the distinction between the Catholic faith and a dissenting amalgamation of some Catholic concepts with New Age elements. See the following on Thomas Keating as an example of dissent: http://www.spiritualdirection.com/2015/09/28/can-i-trust-father-thomas-keating

I truly believe that you have found this dissenting niche in 'Catholic' thought and have had this reinforced by others, even priests, nuns, and bishops. Richard Hanifen himself has stated that he sees no problem with Panenthiesm even though it contradicts the teachings of Ecumenical Councils. Because of this I do not blame nor accuse you of deliberate deception but since we have repeatedly detailed our concerns publicly with no serious response we have questioned just how genuine this is.

We eagerly await your detailed response to our concerns laid out in our letter to Bishop Sheridan.

Corey Chambers

Examining Frannie #12: Rebuttal to Bishop Sheridan's Response

The Bishop's Response

Dear Mr. Chambers,

This email is in response to your latest communication in which you ask me to take action against the members of One Simple Voice.

May I first request that you discontinue your condemnation of One Simple Voice and their work. Since you have not met with any of the members or attended any of the retreats, it seems inappropriate to judge not only their words, but also their moral character and their canonical status.

Upon assurance that you will discontinue such efforts to publicly discredit those involved with One Simple Voice, I would invite you to visit with them in person to voice your concerns and enter into a dialogue with them.

Bishop Hanifen informs me that he discontinued efforts to dialogue, but would take part in this effort, should you choose to accept the invitation.

I will await you response in the hope that this meeting can take place.

In Christ,

Bishop Michael Sheridan

My Rebuttal

Your Excellency,

First and foremost, you have never given any indication that you have read nor understood my research. Do you not recognize her worldview from what she has written and taught publicly in seminars and interviews which I have documented for you? Do you deny the clear demonstration of it? How could you, a bishop, supposedly learned in theology possibly fail to see the reason and force of argument through clear and thorough documentation? I would be willing to write to you individually if you are interested in actually engaging my letter to you line by line.

Second, with all due respect, I can not and will not in good conscience discontinue my condemnation of the teachings of Frannie Rose, for my conscience is bound first and foremost to the scriptures and to the tradition of our Church without alteration or adulteration.

I have definitively proven through documentation that her teachings are rooted in her earlier religious experiences which she has not publicly rejected but rather speaks as if there is a continuity between all of what she teaches. I have demonstrated from her own words and writings in a manner that is incontrovertible, and any claim to the contrary is incompatible with reason. No attempt at clarification or defense has been presented that has satisfied our concerns.

Third, it is the role of theologians to constantly examine the writings and teachings of others and it has never been inappropriate to scrutinize writings and to examine teachings in a person's own words without knowing the person firsthand, otherwise we could not practically examine the propositions of others whether in history or in our day. This is the academic process and does not require knowing Frannie Rose or Richard Hanifen personally, for neither has it ever been required of scholars to personally know any figure in history, nor for a professor to critique and write rebuttals against a book from one of his contemporaries. You are gravely mistaken to think otherwise. Teachings are propositions which contain statements which are properly defined and either contain truth or falsehood, and if her teachings are but propositions that contain falsity as I have proven beyond all doubt, then there only remains for her to recant.

Fourth, my letter to you is and remains available to the public as will your responses to me concerning it, or lack of response. I have made previous and public efforts to seek clarification from Frannie Rose herself but Hanifen decided that he did not want to engage me in conversation on the curious basis that since we think differently concerning Frannie Rose then we would not be able to benefit from further dialogue. Has Hanifen admitted that this premise to avoid conversation is mistaken? He is more than free to engage in my writings which he has never done. At this point, the force of documentation can not be overturned by rhetoric nor dismissed for any reason. My work remains as the definitive proof of her worldview which you have yet to take as seriously as you should.

This is a matter that is not easily solved by attempts to get along or a simple matter of getting to know the feelings of individuals involved. There is nothing to be gained at this point beyond Frannie's public admission that she has taught heresy, and if she has now changed what she believes or teaches differently than she has then she should make this very plain to all of us that she recants what she has taught in the lectures and interviews we have seen, and rejects her own book the Invitation which contains many errors and teaches contrariety to the Catholic faith.

Fifth, I am very, very sorry if you have been taken in by this latest deception contained on the One Simple Voice website, attempts to try and couch her heresies within language that sounds more Catholic. If she is a Catholic now, as she claims to be, she must admit her previous errors, speak of God as distinct and infinitely so, that we are not part of him in any sense of the word, that our hearts of sinful and that Christ's sacrifice was about the cleansing of sin by his blood, etc. All she has done in her latest writings on her website is to choose her words more wisely and couch them in a few more words that are distinctively Catholic while all along imbuing them with a sense that is not Catholic, but is rather consistent with her New Age beliefs.

Could it be true that others around her who are liberals and dissenters are feeding her poor affirmations to the point that she truly believes that her new age teaching is compatible with the Christian revelation? Even if this was the case, we have proven the distinction and therefore she can not possibly be ignorant in this matter

Sixth, Richard Hanifen only wants an audience with me, John Morrison, or any one else simply to try and convince us that Frannie's New Age teaches are orthodox and we continue to be unconvinced by the rhetoric nor interested in attempts to justify her heresies to us. All dialogue in this matter is best served by an academic process that is thorough and is detail oriented, while documenting our sources, as we have done on countless occasions.

Corey Chambers