Preface
On March 24th,
2016, I wrote my first blog post concerning New Age Thought in the
Diocese of Colorado Springsi.
Since that time I have written several more concerning Frannie Rose,
Richard Hanifen, Bishop Sheridan, and One Simple Voice. All of the
research done in order to create these posts eventually culminated in
a letterii
written to Bishop Sheridan documenting elements of New Age
Spirituality within her teachings drawn from interviews, books, radio
programs, Social Media, etc, all relying upon her own words. All of
the quotations drawn from these sources were used in their immediate
context, remotely within the context of the full body of information
as a whole, and comprehensively within the context of Frannie's
personal religious influences, her promotion of New Age thinkersiii,
her promulgation of New Age thought, and her intent to teach bishops
and priests within the Catholic Church without fully understanding
Christ and his Church herself.
In response to this
letter, Bishop Sheridan claimed that one could not understand the
teachings of another person without knowing them face to face and did
not offer any evidence that he had read or even took my letter
seriouslyiv.
Instead of engaging me in conversation about the content of my
research he asked me to refrain from speaking against One Simple
Voice, which in good conscience I could not do. Unfortunately, the
discussion could not continue further since such a notion runs
contrary to the academic process such as the same historical
evaluation of Jesus Christ communicating to us the revelation of God.
Therefore, I made an appeal to written responses that would offer
both sides the opportunity to do their research and to present their
case in clear and thorough documentation. At this time no attempt has
been made by Bishop Sheridan to actively engage our work, rather he
simply directed me to speak with members of One Simple Voice.
However, in the past members have not been willing to actually engage
my research but only spoke from personal experience and attacked me
personally. Likewise, Richard Hanifen, member of One Simple Voice,
refused to speak with me on the mere basis that we thought
differently concerning Frannie Rosev.
And I refused to engage him further on the promise to discontinue my
analysis of the group, as Bishop Sheridan suggested.
The Bishop's failure to
actively engage in our research, given the extent to which we proved
the heresies within his diocese, is one of many cases which we see
within the Catholic Church today. The Church is truly in crisis, not
being true to itself, but rather infiltrated by heresy, liturgical
abuses, false ecumenism, and New Age thought. To those who are not
fully immersed in the revelation of God may miss the subtle deception
involved in “reframing” Catholic teaching in such a way that is
contrary to its original context. No longer are people tolerant to
inform their intellect of God's revelation they prefer to shape their
own thoughts based in personal experience, and no longer are people
seeking a properly formed conscience but are rather shaping a
morality around their personal opinions. In either case, the effect
of Modernism on the Church is still seen in those individuals who
claim an experience for themselves to which even the teachings of the
Church must bow.
What does One Simple
Voice teach?
On March 1st,
2017 the One Simple Voice website contained a new link which attempts
to answer the question “What does One Simple Voice teach?”vi.
You can read the entire text directly yourself, however, I would
exercise a word of caution to do so without viewing the rest of this
blog post which includes the text in full. As I will demonstrate
throughout this analysis the text does not express key aspects of
Christianity which we would hope to see given the critique of
Frannie's teachings, such as guilt, sin, or the Triune God.
Additionally, I will be able to show how she has repackaged a few of
her concepts such as the mind/heart conflict, and the rather
ambiguous 'WE' language which she continues to use. It is my desire
to show that this most recent attempt of One Simple Voice to explain
itself still does not address any of the major concerns which I have
personally enumerated within my blog posts, and within my more
extensive letter to Bishop Sheridan.
Below I will include
Frannie's text from the website in bold and I will give my response
below each segment of text. I will be sure to identify both for
clarity and will do my best to draw all of our research into
understanding the broader context of what is being presented in order
to clarify her ambiguity and to sift through any and all
equivocation. It is also highly recommended that you read through my
blog posts for quotations and explanations of her teachings,
especially my letter to the Bishop to better understand the concepts
that underline her language. Since I do not intend to repackage this
same evidence it is highly important that you are familiar with the
concepts and research from which I will draw.
Frannie Rose: For those
who are unsure of what we teach, I wish for you to read the following
synopsis of our journey to Union with God. This is what happens with
many of our students as a personal relationship with Jesus grows
deeply and is nurtured through two-way conversation. Their lives
change in beautiful ways, the Peace of God is with them, and their
experience of church becomes richer as their love for the Eucharist
grows deeply. These gifts are what they give to the world, instead of
negativity, judgment, fear or angst. In essence, through a personal
relationship with God, one is doing their part to help Him create the
ultimate peace for humanity.
Response: We first see
here that she is not speaking concerning herself on an individual
level only but rather speaks of “our journey”, others involved
with One Simple Voice. Therefore, while she is indeed claiming to
have written this text, she is writing it as a “synopsis” of
those who actively teach as part of this group. Therefore, it is
possible that she could include aspects of the faith of others
without necessarily fully agreeing with it herself.
The term “Union”
concerning God certainly has a place within the Christian vernacular,
as does some other terms we will see within this text, however, as I
have demonstrated given her history with New Age resources and the
language that is drawn from New Age perspectives, we can not
immediately take the term, or any of these terms, to have the same
meaning as within the context of Catholic teaching. I have shown that
her view of “union” is one that is consistent with New Age
thought, that we are divine, and the original sin is to walk away
from this pantheistic understanding. Likewise, when Richard Hanifen,
benefactor of One Simple Voice, a once Bishop within the diocese,
states that he sees nothing wrong with Panentheism, then we can see
all too clear that such a notion of “union” which has been
proposed by this group must be seen as suspect.
The language of “two-way
conversation”, according to this group, is to “listen to God's
voice”, not first and foremost within the Church, and then to weigh
any impressions from God, or any other spirit which they may be
receiving, but rather are encouraged to place what they have learned
from God's revelation contained within the Church aside, and to take
what is “said” to them as always being from God, since such a
voice, they claim is never judgmental, or critical, but is always
peaceful and pleasant, etc. However, the danger of this sort of
“two-way conversation” leaves people vulnerable and does in fact
encourage personal experience to give shape to their understanding of
God's revelation as opposed to testing the spirits to actually see if
what they are receiving is from God. Christians know all to well that
Satan and fallen angels wander throughout the world seeking the ruin
of souls and countless documented cases of demonic activity that is
often characterized as “peaceful” or filled with “joy”, as is
a common experience within the New Age deception. My personal
experience of the Holy Spirit's conviction of my sins and the
resulting guilt are in accordance with God's revelation of himself in
Scripture, so even though I may find impressions from God to be
unpleasant or in witnessing God bringing rebuke, blindness, or even
death upon men in Scripture, we understand it to be God despite how
we might perceive or feel about it.
Most of this portion of
text speaks of the “students” of One Simple Voice, and no doubt
many of those are self-proclaimed Catholics, which is why Frannie
speaks of “them” and “their”. In general, this idea of peace,
although one of the aspects of Christianity, both having peace
within, such that we have faith in God, and we hope for the
resurrection as well as the restoration of all things subsequent to
all the elements being burned by fire, and the peace we are to strive
to have with one another, as far as we can, but Scripture does not
paint us a picture of a future utopia of peace and harmony, like that
described as the Age of Aquarius, and like what you can often hear in
the words of Frannie Rose. To the contrary, Scripture reveals to us,
God has told us plainly, that wickedness would grow, and that Christ
came not to bring peace but a sword, and we would see a greater
divide between the wicked and the righteous, and each would increase,
and grow in greater conflict with one another.
Frannie Rose: The
mystical life is one in which one lives in union with God. It is a
life lived as “WE”—God and me—instead of “me.” It is a
life of wonder, God’s Peace, and God’s Love at the center of
everything one lives and chooses... Living as “WE,” one finds
freedom, a sense of great hope, and a sense of great possibility.
Living as “WE,” all things are possible. Living as “WE,” one
is protected by God from evil. Listening to God speak each day,
through our challenges, helps us to rise above anger, hurt, and
resentment to forgiveness, compassion, and peace in Him—in essence,
bringing peace to the world. From this place of unity in Him, the
world looks different and can only be explained in words as seeing
with the eyes of a child... Life becomes life lived forever as
“WE”—in His presence, in His purpose, and with His meaning.
God is truth and love, and living as “WE,” our lives can be lived
from this place.
Response: Here we see this
language of “WE”, and each time you see it you must understand it
as she described it in her book, as the “true self”. You will
have to review my work on this subject as it relates both to Frannie,
and also to heretics within the Church such as Fr. Keating. But for
now, understand it to mean that while we are part of God, we are not
God. It is to say that in the center of us is a part of divinity, not
in the sense of “Jesus dwelling within our hearts” but in a sense
that we are ontologically a part of God, this is the divine self as
taught in the New Age, and is contrary to the Creator – Creature
distinction that is at the core of our understanding of who God is
and how we relate to him. It is the notion that God is all that there
is, and even more, and beyond the material world.
Also we will find a lot of
truisms in her text, such that one “finds freedom”, etc but the
precise relationship between who God is and how we relate to Him has
never been explicitly described in accordance with Catholic teachings
by Frannie Rose. If you have read through my blog posts and my letter
to the Bishop I drew together many quotations from her describing her
view, a view which is taken directly from her New Age influences. And
of course this would be the case since she presumed to teach bishops
and priests when her view of God was heretical, and contrary to
Catholic teaching. For if she was truly teaching an experience with
God that is in accordance with the revelation which God himself has
given then no one within the diocese would have questioned her
teachings, but since those who are fully immersed in God's
self-disclosure, and know very well how to discern aberrations, and
identify subtle heretical notions, we have spoken as we should, both
in accordance with our conscience and based in the call which God
himself has placed upon our hearts to teach and to defend the true
Christian experience of God rooted in precisely how he has revealed
himself to us.
Frannie Rose: One sees
Jesus as God’s Only Begotten Son, our teacher of this mystical
journey; the gifts of His sacrifice teach us how God wishes us to be.
If one follows The Way, it leads to eventual surrender to His words
and a letting go of the life we chose. We are resurrected into the
life He chooses for us. This process is one of transformation through
the heart transcending our mind’s will to instead follow His will
for us... It is the truth of Jesus and His teachings that sets us
free while we give His love to the world. Through our being His
peace, we have seen His peace in others. This is how His message is
conveyed best. This is the “new evangelization.” We have seen
this through our ministry, One Simple Voice.
Response: “One sees
Jesus”... of all the ways in which one can express their belief in
God Incarnate, she uses the generic “one”. As I mentioned before
many of her students are Catholics, and perhaps some of them still
maintain that Jesus is “God's Only Begotten Son”. It is not clear
exactly what is meant by this phase, however, since the phrase “God's
Only Begotten Son” is used in all “Christian” cults and
heretical groups, but of course will carry a meaning contrary to that
of true Christianity.
I would like to believe
that she has changed and developed throughout the last year or two
and have become “more Catholic” as a result of her being involved
with the Catholic Church. I would like to believe that she has come
to accept that God is Triune and that God the Son became incarnate
and dwelt among us. And that in this Word, God has indeed spoken
everything he wishes to say to us. I would like to believe that she
maintains that the revelation in Christ is more than just one faith
among others in a piece of pie as she once described. I would really
like to think that what one believes does make a difference and that
doctrine is important but yet she has told us plainly it isn't about
what you believe but the faith itself that is important and that
doctrine does not really matter. For her she sees the Church which
Christ established as something that can be enriched by something
outside of itself and only when we put it aside. But sadly, we have
seen her quote Jesus before, as we would see any New Age teacher
appeal to Jesus, but the “truth of Jesus and His teachings” are
not conveyed in accordance with Catholic teaching, but rather
Christ's language is used to smuggle in New Age concepts which are
inherently contrary to his original intent. Above all, if she has
indeed changed any of her teachings it would be prudent in the light
of our concerns to speak plainly and comprehensively in order that we
may know that she now rejects some of her previous teachings and that
she know understands some of her ideas to be wrong.
“The gifts of His
sacrifice”... As I mentioned before, I am not surprised that
certain concepts relating to our salvation and Christ as our Savior
is omitted from this text. The central concept in our spiritual
journey as Catholics is Christ's bloody sacrifice upon the cross!
This is a dominant Catholic teachings... that God became incarnate
and died a most horrific death, shedding his blood for the
forgiveness of our sins, so that we may be freed from both the guilt
and the sin that so deeply pervades our heart. We look to the blood
of Christ to cleanse us from all sin and so our spiritual journey
becomes one of purgation, both in the here and now, and also in
purgatory, as we are sanctified in order to stand in the presence of
God without stain or blemish. And consequently the resurrection from
the dead, of which Christ is the first fruits, by which we too will
be raised to new life.
In fact, according to
Catholic teaching the whole of our spiritual journey is expressed
according to the Incarnation, that God the Son, the second person of
the Truine God became a human being, the Crucifixion, that a blood
sacrifice was required for the atonement of our sins to free us from
the guilt and deceitfulness of our hearts, and the Resurrection, that
we too will be brought to newness of life both now through the
sanctification of our whole being and in our glorification where by
we come to behold the Beatific Vision!
Twice in this text Frannie
uses the word 'mind' and as we would expect, it is always expressed
according to the erroneous notion of this mind/heart conflict that is
key in the New Age. In the first instance she says “...the
heart transcending our mind’s will to instead follow His will for
us.” In this first case she is making an identification between the
mind and the self will that we often exercise in defiance to the will
of God. This could not be farther from the truth. While self will,
pride, and arrogance, are indeed acts of defiance to the expressed
will of God, this is not to be directly associated with the mind as
to identify it as “the mind's will”. Later she will say “...we
transcend the mind's problems by celebrating the truth of Jesus...”.
Once again it is the 'mind' that has the problems.
The
heart is the seat of the intellect. We can see this clearly when Mary
upon receiving word from the angelic messenger “Mary treasured all
these words and pondered them in her heart.”vii
We understand that the thoughts of men flow from the condition of
their hearts as well as external influences such as ideas and
impressions that come to their mind. It is the mind, in relation to
externals, that serves at the gateway to our inner most being, and it
is in the deepest parts of ourselves that we reflect upon that which
we have stored within our hearts. Scripture continually directs us to
think and meditate upon his Word, and this we shall do with all our
heart, mind, soul, and strength. Contrary to Frannie's pure and
perfect heart concept, the true self, in Catholic thought it is the
heart that is deceitful above all else and it is from the overflow of
the heart that the mouth speaks. “For it is from within, from the
human heart, that evil intentions come: fornication, theft, murder,
adultery, avarice, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander,
pride, folly.”viii
Yet, sometimes when the truth is presented to us, when the revelation
of God is made known to us, as an external, it may remain as a notion
still if it does not work down into the heart as it should.
Frannie Rose: The
Eucharist is our most sacred way to celebrate this Union. The wonder
of this celebration expresses in a present moment the beauty of this
union in us. Each Mass we attend is a way to honor and solidify this
union as history and the present moment are brought together. With
God, we transcend the mind’s problems by celebrating the truth of
Jesus and His wish for us to remember He is always within us.
Response: The language of
“Union” within the context of Frannie's teachings is extremely
suspect. According to Frannie, what she sees as union is something
that we are in our true self, a part of God, and it is something we
are born to but then we moved away from it. It is very important to
read what she has said on this topic to understand the force of this
point. Not only that but notice that what she says concerning the
Eucharist and the Mass lead back to this “union”, and her focus
is on the “celebration” of something already there, and is
“always within us”.
First, the Eucharist is a
true participation in the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord
and Savior Jesus Christ where by He is made present in the elements
via transubstantiation and is therefore present in a manner that he
is not present anywhere else, not even in our hearts. This is why we come to the Eucharist as opposed to merely turning in on oneself. It is this real presence of Christ in the Eucharist that is the most unique presence of Christ which is outside of ourselves to which we come seeking grace and mercy, both for the forgiveness of our sins and the strengthening to better practice virtue. We come to the Eucharist as something outside of ourselves
seeking what we do not have as the God appointed means by which we
are to receive him fresh and anew. This is not to say that we do not
have a present relationship with Christ, nor that we have experienced
no change in our sinful hearts, but it is indeed more.
Second, in Catholic
mysticism, the idea of union is contrary to how it has been presented
by Frannie Rose. The unitive way, as it is often described by saints
is seen as the third stage of our spiritual journey which comes after
one has spent many, many years in their struggle against sin in their
hearts, and many more years in the practice of virtue, prayer, and
good works. It is only after this very long, and for most people
longer than they will be alive, does one begin in the unitive way.
And even then this union is described as something that grows and
develops, not something that is already there and part of ourselves.
In fact the Catholic idea of union is rooted in the idea of a
spiritual marriage, and such a betrothal to God is that between a
purely created being and the Creator of everything else from nothing,
from which we are, and to which we would go if God did not sustain it
by his Word, our Lord and Savor Jesus Christ.
Frannie Rose: The
Scriptures are not only read, but they are felt by all who live this
life as one with Jesus and His teachings. That is not to say we think
we “are Jesus,” as we are clearly human, but this Union sculpts
us and sands each of us into the being God wishes us to be. The
meaning and the purpose of His words become part of us. A deep-rooted
and richer understanding is uncovered in the scriptures as we
continue to live with God at the center of our lives.
Response: According to Frannie Rose,
the Scriptures, together with Buddhist texts, contain the same basic
message. Given this perspective, not truly understanding the
differences between these two diametrically opposed worldviews, she
would appeal to Scripture in this manner and within this general
interpretive lens, and therefore will not understand them rightly.
I find it curious why
clarification concerning us not being “Jesus” is mentioned
instead of communicating to us plainly that we are not divine in any
way whatsoever as she elsewhere intimates that God and me, this WE,
is the True Self. Jesus was indeed fully human, just as we are, but
he was also fully God, in a manner no one else is. She then curiously
says “...but this Union”, as to employ what usually serves as
having a negating principle. It is therefore not clear exactly what
is being affirmed and what is being negated since she fails to
explicitly define exactly what she means by 'union'. But again if she
were to define it in this text as she has elsewhere, it would be yet
another clear admission to heresy.
Frannie Rose: As you
know, mystical people through the centuries have suffered many
hardships carrying the cross, conflicting with those who do not
understand this Unity and its experience. Unable to understand from
words this state of Union, they label it only by the things they know
of or have read about – this divisiveness manifests from one who
has not found this Unity within himself.
Response: It should first
be noted that when she says 'mystical people' she did not say
specifically Catholic saints, nor did she identify “those who do
not understand” to be the Church. First and foremost mystical
people did not suffer at the hands of the Church because the Church
persecuted them for their relationship with Christ, rather they were
often given their own religious order after evaluating that they are
in fact orthodox and in accordance to the teachings of the Church.
The real conflict which they often suffered was the corruption in the
Church such as heresy, sinfulness, cowardice bishops, and priests
abusing their power, etc, not unlike what we are witnessing with this
liberal, modern, New Age infiltration.
Frannie's view of “Unity”
has been shown to be heretical. It isn't a matter of being
persecuted, its a matter of believing something to be contrary to
what God has told us about Himself. As I have said before, if
Frannie's teaching were in accordance with “things they know of or
have read about”, that is everything which God has revealed to us,
then we certainly would have no issues with it.
First, the revelation of
God which he has given unto us through Scripture, Tradition, and the
Magisterium, is exactly what we know of and have read about.
Therefore, we know that when we have experiences we have guidance and
a religious context with which to interpret and sift through the
encounter. And it is through this method, of true spiritual
direction, that we come to understand our experiences and be able to
better discern whether the spiritual influence is of God or if it is
from somewhere else, either ourselves, others, or the demonic. As I
explained with my assessment of Bonaventure's work, The Journey of
the Mind into God, the first six parts of the seven part work is
devoted to meditations upon the revelation of God concerning Himself,
reflections upon nature, our relationships, and the dynamics between
the various powers of our soul, and it is only after this and within
this context that one will have a true and authentic experience of
God.
Second, Christianity is a
real faith, one in which we encounter a real God, so it is obviously
fitting that there is a reality to that which we read in the pages of
Scripture. However, not just any experience is healthy or even from
God. We certainly should have experiences of God but they must be
within the context of what he has already revealed and established
for our spiritual good. Frannie's suggestion that we set “what we
know” aside in our experiences is the complete opposite of what we
are told to do by God himself! She claims that when we “take back”
the things that we knew they would be “richer”. However, it is
not necessary to eliminate the mind from this equation, in fact it is
exceedingly dangerous.
Third, one of the New Age mind
conditioning techniques is to do this very thing. Experiences are
very subjective and when the mind is not actively engaged in
evaluating them in the light of God's revelation then we are also
extremely susceptible to suggestion and influence. In fact,
experiences are often very powerful and emotional and usually can
have a great swaying power of allegiance to different ideas. This is
the true art of manipulation because within these experiences one can
often pick up erroneous notions and then when they start to think
upon those things that they left out of the situation and begin to
think of them differently. While we certainly should have a real and
authentic back and forth with the various sources of theology, one of
which being the personal experiences of Christians, we are very
careful to weigh them very carefully and to be extremely cautious not
to allow them to introduce foreign ideas. Many, many cults have
formed within the United States centered around Christianity because
a person took an impression or “voice from God” and came back to
Scripture and formulated an entirely different system of thought,
reframing concepts and giving new meanings to biblical terms.
Fourth, Frannie continues to
characterize Catholics who clearly see this heretical view of “Union”
for what it is as if they are ignorant people who don't understand.
Frannie wants you to believe that she has had this esoteric
experience that can not be defined by words, either by analogy,
approximation, negation, affirmation, etc... the only way that any
human being comes to understand anything at all! We don't question
whether she has had an experience, for many, many people have
different kinds of experiences that change their life from all walks
of life and in the context of many different religious systems. We
object to the New Age context with which she has had these
experiences, and seriously question her motivation to be involved
within the Catholic Church since she has said plainly that God wants
her to teach the bishops, priests, and nuns, the very thing that
people do who have strong spiritual experiences within the context of
dabbling in New Age Spirituality. And there is no real surprise that
she has and will continue to have a certain measure of success among
the clergy because most of them are not train in the manner in which
they used to before Vatican II, and those that have too often have
watered down their faith to such an extent that liberalism and
modernism become the main fixture of their teachings.
Frannie Rose: We would
be happy to answer any questions you may have or to hear of your
experiences. The journey of Jesus and his teachings proclaims the
“good news,” and we share that good news. With a personal
relationship with Jesus, the world can become this good news, if all
begin to live His message.
Response: Yes! Please!
Answer our questions! This is what we have been asking for over a
year! Instead of receiving clear answers we have received personal
attacks from her studentsix,
a formal refusal to speak to usx,
and political maneuvering designed to protect her and Richard
Hanifen. In fact the only response I have ever received from Frannie
has been a short message on my facebook page for The Catholic
Wesleyan, in which she attacks our faith and implies our ignorancexi.
All of these things have been documented, every contact, every
written word.
And I pray that we not
only receive answers which they claim to give freely, but also
justice for the spiritual anguish that many have received as a result
of this continuing deception, this One Simple Deception. Our hearts
bleed for all involved and our sole desire is for heresy to be seen
for what it is and to be treated as such, as is the most fitting
response of the Catholic faithful.
vii
Luke 2:19
viii
Mark 7:21-22
