Saturday, December 9, 2017

Examining Frannie #14: What One Simple Voice Teaches? One Simple Deception

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

No comments:

Post a Comment

Another Letter to a Jehovah's Witness

Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ His only begotten Son, who is eternally begotten of the Father from al...