Thoughts upon the Salvation of Aborted Infants

These are some initial thoughts which I hope to work through as I read the Vatican document on the subject, at which time I will write it more fully in accordance with that document and summarize its content.

It should not be supposed that no possible opportunity exists for infants who die without the sacrament of baptism. For God’s grace is not confined to his sacraments any more than God’s nature can be contained by the universe itself. Salvation is God’s work in us, to act and to will according to his good purpose, and we should not assume for a moment that God’s will that all men be saved has no practical application when an infant, by no fault of their own, is deprived of his very life within the womb of his mother. Rather, we have hope in the mercy and love of God, that through Christ’s sacrifice upon the cross, which is sufficient for the sins of the whole world, He shall work within us that which is pleasing to Him.

While we are all conceived in sin, and that at the very moment of conception, in view of Adam, we share in the loss of sanctifying grace, and so are properly said to be conceived suffering from the effects of original sin, this privation of sanctifying grace. The Church’s teaching of original sin concerning this privation ought not to be imagined to be changed or altered or modified on account of this proposal. To the contrary, it isn’t a claim that such an infant was born without the stain of original sin, though we know that God is more than capable of doing this if He was pleased to do so, but rather we look to that same remedy by which anyone is freed from such a condition, the recovery of sanctifying grace.

The Church’s teaching upon the role of baptism, as the sacramental means by which sanctifying grace is restored to the soul, will likewise be firmly upheld. Baptism is the divinely appointed means by which He has purposed to communicate this grace to us, yet this does not exclude the possibility that He shall give sanctifying grace to whom He will outside of the sacrament, just as we know He did in the case of our Blessed Mother. Even though she, like any other, was destined to lose sanctifying grace on account of Adam, was by a singular act of grace preserved within it. God is as capable within the womb to infuse the body with a soul as he is to infuse the soul with sanctifying grace.

At the moment of our conception let us consider that while we were deprived of sanctifying grace we were not deprived of all grace. To the contrary, we were conceived in grace as well, created at the moment of conception by a most powerful and incredibly loving God. We were enveloped in the grace of God just as we were surrounded by the flesh of another. We must not envision that nothing of God’s grace ever came to effect within the womb, as if no movement of God occurred, no grace stirred, no presence within the soul, but that some how we were totally void of all grace from the moment of our conception to the day of our baptism.

Prevenient grace is all that work of God which precedes the moment when sanctifying grace is restored to the soul.  It is that grace which goes before and paves the way for us unto salvation. It is that grace which is antecedent to all other graces and leads us towards Christ and all that entails. It is the promise of God that He who began a good work within us will bring it unto completion. And such hope we have for ourselves who are capable of reading this proposal given that we offer no hindrance to the work of God, that we do not grieve the Holy Spirit, that we do not turn our wills against Him. 

In the case of infants, they too have such a working upon their heart, as Christ certainly expresses his tenderness towards the children, and especially grieves greatly for them when their life is ended in the womb. In them is no hindrance to that love which God can shed abroad in their heart, no opportunity to grieve the Holy Spirit, nor any chance at all to will against the love of God. Just as there is no opportunity to desire the grace of God, nor to shed their blood for the faith, nor to will according to the will of God, likewise there is nothing within them to act willingly nor knowingly counter to all that grace which God wishes to work within the heart, not because the infant deserves it, nor that it is proper to nature alone, or that he is somehow exempt from being conceived deprived of sanctifying grace, but rather in virtue of the blood of Christ and his universal salvific will that all men be saved. And it is within this theological context that I would propose that God is more than capable to lead an infant within the womb via prevenient grace to a moment of the restoration of sanctifying grace prior to his moment of death, or even at the moment of their death when like martyrs are shedding their blood.

While we do not have certainty in this regard, I write this that you will have hope in your hearts that our God is merciful and mighty to save. That we should pray for all the victims of abortion that God shall grant them not only natural happiness but also the glorious beatific vision. That we can hope to one day meet each and every one of these little ones only to find that they have been with God praying for each of us that they too may see each and everyone of us. Do not let your hearts be troubled when you study original sin, baptism, sanctifying grace, or outside of the Church there is no salvation, rather be encouraged and remain hopeful in the grace of God who can do abundantly more than we could ever hope or imagine.

"Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us..." Ephesians 3:20

Thoughts upon Purgatory

Only those who die in a state of grace, meaning those who are 'saved' (divine life in the soul), will enter purgatory if needed. Only those that are bound for heaven will go through a process of purgation, a process that may not be necessary for everyone who dies in the state of grace. Purgatory is not a second chance, or a lesser hell, nor an excuse to postpone our sanctification, but is the porch of Heaven where we hose off the remainder of dirt that has clung to our soul before we stand before God. Since the state of the soul at the moment of death may not be fully prepared for the Beatific Vision, may not be in a state of perfect love, may not have been entirely sanctified, God will purge our souls of any contamination in the soul, such as inordinate affections, misguided passions, attachment to temporal goods, etc. 

When we die, our souls may be in such a state which necessitates the completion of our sanctification in love, in order that we may fully love God and enjoy his glorious presence without any of these hindrances in the soul. We are not speaking of contaminates as in unforgiven sin, but we are talking about the effects of sin which have been forgiven, which are the temporal punishments that are due to sin. The destructive nature of sin greatly impacts the spiritual condition of the soul, and even though we go through a process of sanctification while in the body, our soul may not have fully traveled through the entire process whereby the soul is perfected in love. Therefore purgatory is not the remission and forgiveness of sins, by rather the “punishment” or "temporal punishments" that are due for sin, mainly the debilitating effects of sin upon the soul. 

The residual effects of sin must be addressed by an all holy and just God, in order for the soul to be in such a state which is fully pleasing to our almighty God and Father. Since our God is a jealous God, he does not overlook our faults, he does not ignore the state of our souls, but rather ensures our sanctification in order that we may have ‘that holiness without which no man shall see the Lord’. This cleansing, or purging, has been described as fire where by one is saved but as through fire, where the less beautiful aspects of our being are removed from us (1 Corinthians 3:15). This fire can be expressed as the purifying fire of God’s love, in order that after this purgation, only that fire and which it refines may remain in the soul for all eternity. It is the love of God that purifies our hearts and purges us from all sin and its effects.

How is a less than perfect state of the soul dealt with after death? What happens to someone who has not yet been entirely sanctified through relationship with Christ on this side of heaven? How is one who has not yet been made perfect in love in all ways be transformed further in preparation for life with God? Before we address these questions, it is important to address the presence of concupiscence in the soul. Concupiscence is one of the temporal consequences of Adam’s sin, and all those who are not born in the state of Adamic perfection, which is all of us whom God has not preserved from this effect, struggle against this effect. Concupiscence is not sin in and of itself, but it can be referred to as sin only in as much as it is the result of sin and leads to sin. Since this concupiscence lays primarily in the soul, and since we are not cleansed from this effect on this side of heaven then it is in need of cleansing prior to our entrance into heaven. Since not all go through a final purgation on one’s way to heaven and since we are not cleansed from concupiscence on this side of heaven, then in view of purgatory we are speaking primarily concerning other effects such as contamination in the soul, inordinate affections, misguided passions, attachment to temporal goods, etc, all which are a result of our lack of mastery over concupiscence which could have been accomplish by the help of God’s grace. It could be said, that unlike the other effects of sin, concupiscence is removed from the soul at the time of death.

Let’s examine the article of death. Human nature is a composite unity of body and soul.  In other words, human nature is not complete without the other constituent part. Therefore, death is the moment at which human nature is torn in two, the ripping of the soul from the body, an experience which is repulsive to us. Nevertheless, Christ, in his act of redemption through his death and resurrection, reveals to us a profound work of God by which he purifies and saves the soul from all effects of sin. Therefore, there is something to be said concerning the moment of death and its immediate effects upon the soul, and it would be in this context when the temporal effect of concupiscence is addressed. But are all the effects of sin dealt with in the mere article of death? Jewish and early Christian thought says no. But how then did they understand the atonement? How is the salvific work of Christ made efficacious in this final purgation? The key concept here is that the article of death does not cleanse a man rather cleansing is done in a relational manner by the fires of God’s love. The work that God does in the soul 'in' purgatory is the application of the Atonement not personal work.

But how should we understand and describe what it is that the soul experiences in this state of purgation? First, the soul is passive as God actively engages and works upon the soul. By analogy, we are like a child, muddied by the world, standing on the porch of our home as our parent hoses us off in order that we may be clean enough to enter into the house. In similar manner, the salvific work of Christ is applied to our soul in an active manner, as we simply stand still for God to work sanctification in our souls. This process cannot properly be characterized as a duration of time since, as far as we know, this process is instantaneous, similar to the notion of glorification which is maintained by Protestants.

Second, since the soul has contamination in the soul, such as inordinate affections, misguided passions, attachment to temporal goods, etc, there will be suffering involved in this process. How is this so? During this purgation, negatively, the soul is in a state deprived of its full nature in union with the body, with which it was created. The soul, which is apart from the body will suffer in this state of deprivity. For example, the soul that may be overly attached to temporal goods will be separate from them, and by analogy, as an individual suffers withdraw from their absence of chemical dependence, in like manner, our souls are deprived of those temporal goods on which we placed the kind of dependence upon them as are proper only to God. During this purgation, positively, the fire of God’s love burns in us much like how the love of a father and his desire for our best impacts our heart, and in a sense, by this love for us, we find that the desire for less than God will begin to be purged from our soul. To the extent to which we can behold God as he is, we become more and more desirous for him, and part of our suffering is that He cannot yet be viewed in his purity, but by it are readied and encouraged through our suffering, and further desire the purification that we are undergoing, and come to further understand its necessity.

It is during this purgation, that the love of God changes the soul, and prepares it for life with him. Therefore at the time of the resurrection, when our soul is united to the body, the soul will be perfect in the sight of God, and therefore the souls union back with the body will not cause any contaminates to the body from the soul. Unlike the state of the soul that is not in the grace of God, where by, at the resurrection, the bodies of the lost will be highly contaminated with a soul that is highly deprived from the love of God, and their nature shall be as a rock, and they shall fall into hell as naturally as a rock falls to the ground when released by a hand.  Interestingly, the only exception to this ordinary continuity of relational cleansing and process of sanctification is the extraordinary moment of the second coming at which time all the souls in purgatory will be completely cleansed by virtue of the power of Christ’s coming, the resurrection of the flesh, and by the working of God’s powerful love in the soul.

On Charity and Dignity

“But every one must follow the dictates of his own conscience, in simplicity and godly sincerity. He must be fully persuaded in his own mind; and then act according to the best light he has. Nor has any creature power to constrain another to walk by his own rule. God has given no right to any of the children of men thus to lord it over the conscience of his brethren; but every man must judge for himself, as every man must give an account of himself to God.” “Hold you fast which you believe is most acceptable to God, and I will do the same.” (The Catholic Spirit, Vol. V496,499.) "Never dream of forcing men into the ways of God. Think yourself, and let think. Use no constraint in matters of religion. Even those who are farthest out of the way never compel to come in by any other means than reason, truth, and love" (The Nature of Enthusiasm, 36). "Condemn no man for not thinking as you think: let every one enjoy the full and free liberty of thinking for himself. Let every man use his own judgement since every man must give an account of himself to God.' (Advice to the People Called Methodist)

Each man must follow his conscience, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. It is hoped that the conscience has been properly formed throughout the years and is properly disposed to the revelation of God. We must also do the best we can with the understanding which God has given to us, that we are faithful to those glimpses of light which he shines upon us, while giving us the supernatural sight to perceive it in all its fullness. Everyone is a capable and rational creature which the Holy Spirit leads from within the depths of the heart to its proper end. This role is properly the work of the Spirit of God, and it is for this reason that each one is to judge for themselves and give an account of themselves to God as one capable of ascending to the truths which are revealed to them. It is important that we allow God his proper place in the spiritual formation of his children, and that no one take it upon themselves to constrain another, to convict them, or to lord it over the consciences of our brothers and sisters in Christ. Such a position is rooted in charity which not only applies to Christians but to all people everywhere.

One of the greatest enemies of charity is the insistence that others adhere to the very convictions which we hold within our own hearts. It is the demand of one man that all other minds must maintain the very same conclusions and follow the same philosophical commitments. One becomes so determined that all men think alike, and that all men act alike, that such conformity stands as a requirement for friendship. As opposed to building bridges and developing mutual understanding one rather emphasizes differences and set out to destroy any common ground they may otherwise would have had. It is an obstinate and intolerant devotion to one's own opinions and prejudices in such an absolute sense that there remains no possibility that they could be in error.

Everyone is perfectly capable of sifting through thought to determine what is useful to them. No individual person is to serve as the infallible interpreter of all things, or the final arbiter of truth, nor to represent themselves as comprehending the exact meaning of all things with an absolute certainty. We all believe ourselves to comprehend the truth of things, yet we also maintain a holy skepticism concerning ourselves, lest we at any time make an idol of our own understanding. We ought to continually re-evaluate ourselves in as much as we maintain our views in a tentative manner knowing full well that others are as convinced of their own commitments as we are of our own.

We embrace the virtue of charity when we, 1) acknowledge that reasonable certainty is much more tenable than a claim to absolute certainty, 2) reasonable certainly leads us to maintain our views in a more tentative manner, 3) tentative views allow for the possibility that we can be in error on any particular and creates an openness, 4) that others are subject to this same state of reasoning and that we are all in this together.

To the contrary, there are those who insist upon their own perspectives, demand their own definitions, adhere to their own views and ethics in such a manner as to lead them to act against their own principles and to behave in the very manner they would not wish upon any of their friends. They maintain their views in such an absolute sense there remains no possibility for interpretation, no room for opinion, no chance for rebuttal. Their interpretation of a thing is so absolute, so non-negotiable, so perfect and exact that it is confused with the thing itself. Such a narrow-mindedness not only causes great harm to charity among men, but is often the occasion for justified hatred, acts of aggression, ostracization, harassment, and discrimination towards anyone who even hints at the possibility of alternative interpretations. To this I must issue a caution against bigotry in any form, directed towards anyone in any respect. While we are free to disagree on all particulars it is quite another to act discriminatory towards anyone or to treat them worse than their inherent dignity deserves.

A human person experiences freedom when they are not under any compulsion, not subject to any coercion, threat, force, intimidation, or ridicule. Free from all external pressures a person is more able to explore the world of thought in a safe academic environment where they attend to cool, calm reasoning which shall serve as the sole guide towards understanding. We ought to work together towards such an environment as it will be mutually beneficial and edifying to all.

It must be understood that not all men will be able to agree on all particulars, yet we are called to live at peace with all men as far as it is possible on our own part. We must extend the same courtesy to those who think differently than us as we would extend to ourselves. To the contrary, people too often position themselves in such a manner that to think any differently than themselves is somehow to promote contention against them personally, all the while they militantly proselytize their own views taking all the possible risk to offend anyone who gets in their way.

As a Roman Catholic I have a deep love for all human beings and maintain that we were all created in the image and likeness of God. I maintain the dignity of the human person and our freedom to explore the deepest questions that relate to our humanity free from coercion, threat, force, intimidation, or ridicule. I firmly believe that we must strive to live at peace with everyone and to do all that we can to build bridges and establish relationships based upon common ground and to de-emphasis what divide us. I believe that we can act charitably towards all people regardless of country, creed, or color.

As such nor can I condone anything that is contrary or incompatible with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe. As a result, I will not be able to come to agreement with everyone on all matters, nor will I be able to promote and support everyone in the manner in which they wish. While I will not compromise myself, nor go against my own principles, you can rest assured that even in the midst of disagreement I will remain sympathetic and charitable. Since it is not a prerequisite to agree with another in all matters in order to enjoy life long friendship, I commit to remain open to healthy relationships with anyone and everyone regardless of their philosophical commitments.

I implore all people to act towards others in the most charitable manner possible, to interpret each other’s words in the most charitable manner possible, and to respond to all people whom you disagree with in the most charitable manner possible. Act towards others in the exact same manner in which you would have them act towards you without exception, without compromise, without excuse, and without condition. Without charity, without an attempt on our part to treat all people with dignity and respect, then we do ourselves and others a great disservice, for we are all best served by being gracious and charitable towards one another. Love and acceptance of others does not require strict adherence to every conclusion they may have, nor does it involve having to compromise oneself, nor does it mean that one must view and interpret all things in the exact same way. In fact, it takes greater virtue to love those who hate you, and to pray for those who persecute you, and to exercise patience in the face of adversity. 

I understand that there are many teachings of the Catholic Church that are in direct conflict with the views of non-Catholics. Upon learning that I am a Catholic, and upon learning the Church’s stance on subjects like abortion, contraception, sexual ethics, and a plethora of many other subjects, you may be tempted to treat me poorly if you think otherwise on these subjects. As a Catholic I can not support everyone in the manner in which everyone may want to be supported, but that does not mean that I will not love you, nor does it mean that I will treat you poorly, nor will it be a condition as to whether I will be your friend. I also understand that there are those who struggle with anti-Catholic attitudes and struggle not to engage in anti-Catholic bigotry. I understand that there are those who hate and abhor the teachings of the Church and justify hatred towards anyone who maintains Church teaching claiming that the Church is oppressive, and it must be resisted to the point of militantly working against it and attacking people in association with it.

To the contrary, I would encourage everyone to follow the dictates of their own heart in a manner that is the most charitable possible. If anyone thinks differently on any matter it is of necessity that we follow the way of charity, for if we begin to violate the dignity of the human person in the name of championing a particular ideology, or in the name of fighting against particular philosophical commitments then we fail to live out that dignity in which we were created. While our world would certainly be much more peaceful if everyone thought the same on all matters, in reality there is a great deal of diversity in thought in our world. If we are only tolerant with others in as much as their views are compatible with our own, then we are essentially not willing to tolerate those with views different than our own, even those that may be diametrically conflicting with our own. When we see a person, who views themselves in a way different than we would view them this doesn’t mean that we do not acknowledge that such views can exist in the mind, nor does it mean that we inherently discriminate against the individual, nor does it mean that we will go out of our way to persecute people.

The philosophical commitments of a person are their own business, and we are all free to exercise our right to entertain those thoughts and to live out our lives in a manner that is consistent with our philosophy. It is only when philosophizing begins to justify hatred towards others for any reason that we should stand firm upon best principles and embrace charity as the most excellent way. It is when we begin to cleave to vice ourselves in order to address what we perceive to be an injustice that we become the very person we vowed to never become, we have adopted the very same attitudes which we claimed to be fighting against. Every person has the right to sift through human thought, to decide for themselves how to best live their life, and most of all, every person has the choice to treat people based upon their inherent dignity and not on the basis of whether we think alike.

It behooves us to be the change we want to see in the word, to demonstrate charity that knows no bounds, to exemplify the most excellent way of understanding, mercy, and grace. Such a way does not require that we all think alike, nor does it require that we all believe alike, nor does it require that we all act alike, but it does require that we have a willingness to live at peace with everyone in as much as it depends upon us. No matter your philosophical commitments, no matter what worldview you find most convincing, no matter how you interpret any matter whatsoever, if we can not do this much, if we can not be charitable with one another, then we truly fail to live up to our potential.

Why the Panentheistic view of God is deficient

Why the Panentheistic view of God is deficient

A month ago I entered into a discussion with a pronounced panentheist and for the first time I found myself thinking about the best method for explaining why the Christian view of God is more grand and complete, while being sensitive but honest in describing panentheism as a deficient view.

First, let me take a moment to give panentheism a simple definition. It is the view that everything that exists is God. God is viewed as that which transcends the cosmos but also contains the cosmos as a part of himself. Therefore, there is a part of God that is not the cosmos and therefore transcends it, but also there is a part of God that is the cosmos. For this panentheist it seemed vital for him/her that God was immanent, but was under the impression that the only way for God to be immanent is if and only if the cosmos was God. The Christian view obviously rejects this perspective.

Second, according to revelation the second person of the Trinity became man and in this Hypostatic Union both the human and divine nature were united in one person, God the Son. The two natures of Christ were maintained full and complete without any mingling, change, or diminishing of either nature. Christ was fully God and fully man, maintaining both natures in their integrity. Christ could rightly be said to have represented both parties, reconciling the world to God. Christ as God, represented God and so reached out to us in his loving kindness. Christ as human, representing humanity reached out to God and took hold of that for which he had taken hold of us. Christ reveals to us the true nature of the cosmos in relation to God. We are distinct and separate. We are so close to one another that our nature can exist along side his nature in a single person. We are so close that the Word, which holds all of existence in being with his power, is ever near to all of his and in the most intimate manner. For if God were to withdraw his power and presence then the whole of the cosmos would slip back into the nothingness from which it came. However, it was not necessary for me to appeal to revelation in order to express why I am not a panentheist.

I had to express in no uncertain terms that God is ultimate reality, in that nothing can surpass him, and that it is he that created, sustains, governs, controls, and otherwise holds together that which he created. By no means should God ever be seen as just one thing among others in existence, rather he is the very ground upon which our cosmos exists at all. This is why Scripture speaks of us as being created in him, by him, and through him. As the ultimate cause of all creation God is not just the first of many like causes in the chain of causation. He is the uncaused cause of all causation itself.

God is a pure spirit that is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and eternal. Such a God as this, so grand and realized, is a necessary being who is pure actuality, where there is no change, alteration, or modification. For such a change within the divine nature would imply either a change for the better or a change for the worse, the possibility to exist or to not exist. A God that can change is contingent, meaning that he can be this or that, or even to be or not to be. Such a God can not bring anything that does not exist into existence, nor would he have existence within him, but rather would have to rely upon a necessary being outside of himself for his existence. Since a necessary being is required to bring something from nothing, to bring something into being from nothingness, we can likewise reject the notion of an infinite regress of contingent causes.

If the panentheist says that God was once all spirit but then changed to also form the cosmos from himself, then this is to posit a change within God, and change of any kind here denotes contingency, a God who is not fully realized. If the panentheist says that God has always been both spirit and comprising the cosmos, which implies that the cosmos is also eternal, then we are identifying God with matter, which is contingent. In order for God to be a necessary being there can be no contingency within God himself.

Identifying God with creation in an ontological manner actually diminishes our view of God. God is more grand, more profound, perfect, holy, good, just, and loving precisely because he is Wholly Other. Since God contains all perfections within himself, any change within him would only be a diminishing of one of these perfections. While we see such characteristics within the cosmos in an analogous manner, we certainly do not contribute the limitations we observe to God. A view of God that predicates limited, contingent, potential, temporal, or material characteristics to him detracts from the grandest view of God possible, the Christian and biblical view of God. A God that contains any of these attributes would mean that he is not necessary, that he does not have existence within himself, that he looks to something outside of himself to explain his own existence, and therefore would cease to be the ultimate reality that the panentheist claims for him. Reason was more than sufficient to explain why the panentheistic view of God is deficient, and these are the reasons why I am not a panentheist. 

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

Preface

On March 24^th, 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 seriously^iv. 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 Rose^v. 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 1^st, 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 students^ix, a formal refusal to speak to us^x, 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 ignorance^xi. 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.

i http://thecatholicwesleyan.blogspot.com/2016/03/exposing-frannie-new-age-thought-in.html

ii http://thecatholicwesleyan.blogspot.com/2017/03/examining-frannie-11-letter-to-bishop.html

iii http://thecatholicwesleyan.blogspot.com/2016/04/examining-frannie-10-reading-list-from.html

iv http://thecatholicwesleyan.blogspot.com/2017/05/examining-frannie-12-rebuttal-to-bishop.html

v http://thecatholicwesleyan.blogspot.com/2016/04/examining-frannie-5-response-to-richard.html

vi https://www.onesimplevoice.org/teachings

vii Luke 2:19

viii Mark 7:21-22

ix https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP_PXf90edk&list=PLeVjnsYkDEhoFLhC3a1G9O18YL6WgvTey

x http://thecatholicwesleyan.blogspot.com/2016/04/examining-frannie-5-response-to-richard.html

xi http://thecatholicwesleyan.blogspot.com/2017/05/examining-frannie-13-appeal-to-frannie.html

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