Tuesday, May 16, 2017

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

Saturday, May 6, 2017

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


Friday, March 31, 2017

Examining Frannie #11: Letter to Bishop Michael Sheridan


March 31, 2017


Bishop Michael Sheridan
Diocese of Colorado Springs
228 N. Cascade Ave
Colorado Springs, CO 80903

Re: Frannie Rose
One Simple Voice


Your Excellency:

I. Personal Note

Since our last correspondence it has heavily weighed upon me that the manner of my discourse with you personally as well as the manner of my presentation throughout my research had been less than ideal and may have served as a hindrance to the very purpose for which I set out to accomplish. For this I deeply apologize and ask for your patience in this matter and ask that you allow the truth of what I wish to convey to win over any manner in which it is presented.

My desire for the last few years has been to study and present the teachings of Frannie Rose in her own words so that there would be no confusion concerning its meaning. And often this has created impassioned moments of ill-temper, impatience, and arrogance. My intent, however, was and continues to be the catechesis of Catholics about the dangers of New Age Spirituality and its most recent expression through the teachings of Frannie Rose. Many, many hours has been poured into this project in the evaluation of her teachings for the purpose of presenting it to you in her own words, a task which has not been simple nor expedient to say the least.

When I first announced that I would be reviewing and explaining the teachings of Frannie Rose I received immediate opposition from some of her students. This initial response revealed to me just how pervasive her teachings had become within the area. When I engaged each and every one of them not one of them spoke from a factual basis but rather spoke of their relationship to Frannie Rose and spoke of their personal experiences. I was personally attacked and was not able to reason with any of them because none of them were willing to evaluate what I had documented.1

I care very much for the revelation of Christ and His Church, and I take personal issue with those who attempt to lead people away from that fullness and into the incredible dangers that exist and I myself have experienced. When some of the Catholic faithful in the Diocese of Colorado Springs first explained their frustrations to me I did not put too much thought into it, but as the problem persisted I felt a personal call to unravel the teachings of Frannie and to explain to others in no uncertain terms that she is not presenting the gospel of Jesus Christ, nor is she presenting a Christian form of prayer, nor is she echoing the voice of the saints in own day, nor is what she teaches couched in the theology of the Church, rather, what and how she teaches is directly influenced by and firmly based upon basic fundamental philosophical assumptions which are in stark opposition to the Christian revelation.

II. Historical Background

A. Religious Formation and Influence

Prior to Frannie's entrance into the Catholic Church her religious formation came primarily through New Age teachers such as Deepak Chopra,2 3 Eckhart Tolle,4 James Redfield,5 and Gary Zukav6. She did not enter the Catholic Church in order to be in full communion, that is to be fully convinced of the dogmas of the Catholic Church as revealed by God. Rather, she claims that a spirit, which refers to itself as 'I Am', directed her to Buddhist and Sufi texts and she came to conclude that they contained the same essential teachings as Scripture, though she was admittedly partial to Buddhist writings. She entered the Church in order to promulgate New Age Spirituality under the guidance of this spirit who came to her, which she now identifies with her True Self, the voice of her heart. She was not drawn to the Church by its truth, rather she was told to go to the Catholic Church in order to draw it into this spirit's teachings.

To the contrary, Scripture tells us not to “believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God...”7 We are also told that “The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.”8 Scripture also tells us that “every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist...”9 The spirit which she listens to is the foundation of her religious experiences, and it is this same spirit who wants to use her to infiltrate the Catholic Church.

B. The Present New Age Infiltration

The spirit that influenced her did not lead her to the unique and exclusive incarnation of God in the person of Jesus Christ, nor did it draw her into the Catholic Church by the fullness of truth.

To the contrary, this spirit has told her: “I am pulling the nuns. And with My word, one day the priests, too, will feel pulled. Slowly their faith will become less covered by structure and will be the breath of essence as which it began – a circle. War based upon dogma will end.... we shall begin with the Catholic Church, as its structure is heavy, and eyes fall upon it. Once its clergy hears My voice, I will give them instructions for My way to peace.”10 Earlier in her book, The Invitation, this spirit defines structure as “Churches, temples, and religious traditions...”11 This spirit also says that “many priests are lost in old conditioning and thick structure.”12 Frannie teaches that we need to question what the Church has taught us and to abandon the dogmas of the Church, particularly the teaching that God is distinct, and to listen to this spirit that has been influencing her.

Likewise this spirit spoke concerning the liturgy that “I am not in the space that is filled with another's words... hearing another's words fills up one's mind... I am elusive to your mind.”13 Frannie therefore teaches and speaks of the liturgy as a “program filled with words to say and repeat” and that this is “the structure that is seen in religious practices today.” “From the moment one enters a church or a sanctuary, the program is written for him.”14

To the contrary, the liturgy on earth reflects the on-going heavenly liturgy of the saints as depicted in the book of Revelation. God is present to us through Word and Sacrament, and permeates the entire Mass with his presence with those same words which he has given unto us. Any work of the Holy Spirit will be in conformity with what God has already revealed to us and which we already live out by the fullness of truth in the Catholic Church. This is why this spirit wants to work within the silence of one's mind apart from the scripture-saturated mass.

There is a clear demarcation between those who merely live the form of religion without a vibrant faith in Christ, and the idea that all religious traditions, including the dogmas of the Catholic Church, need to be abandoned so that a spirit can lead us into Panentheism. There is also a clear distinction between gaining a deeper understanding of the revelation of Christ, and the idea that New Age Spirituality can enhance or enrich the teachings of the Catholic Church through listening to a spirit that works in and through Frannie Rose, and those she attempts to influence.

This spirit did not lead her to the Catholic Church to embrace its fullness or to accept Christ as the incarnation of God, she was being led to the Church to undermine its dogmas, which is precisely what spirits attempt to do through the New Age movement and their infiltration of the Church. The only way for “the war upon dogma” to end is to eliminate the dogmas of the Church, this would be to remove the 'structure that weighs down the heart', which she claims to be part of God, and in acknowledging this is how peace is brought about in the world.15 She would have us to believe that this “war upon dogma”, that is the contrary teachings in different world religions one from another, will end when we all recognize that each of our respective religions are mere vehicles to this same Panentheistic God, and through this God-consciousness we will have peace and harmony. This is the core doctrine of New Age Spirituality.

Near the end of her book she states that “This is not about religion, structure, a specific dogma, or words to follow. Each religion is only a vehicle to God...”16 “A religion is just a vehicle and to get it right is not the point, to find God is."17 To find God according to Frannie Rose means to obtain God-consciousness, that is to realize that you are God in your True Self, and no matter what path one takes to get there she claims that this is what is found in the center, God. This is precisely New Age teaching. Although Christianity may assist in higher levels of consciousness, as used and interpreted within the paradigm of New Age Spirituality, but essentially it is an obstacle to the highest state of consciousness, the realization that God and man is not distinct.

To the contrary, finding God through the incarnation of God the Son, the second person of the Holy Trinity, through the inspired text, and through the Church, which is the sacrament of salvation, is the right, true, proper, and normative means which has been given unto us by God to find Him. That there are small rays of truth mixed with error in other world religions, and that God may at times work in the lives of people exactly where they are at does not negate the fullness of the Catholic Church, nor God's desire that we be led deeper into that fullness, that is, to come to know and understand who it is who has so graciously saved us through the blood of Jesus Christ. “Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.”18

C. Dangers of the New Age Paradigm

According to Frannie all exclusive claims to truth are a product of the egoic mind, a structure of the false self, the mind prison that has been built through conditioning by religion and what we have been told by the Church. The New Age infiltrates all religions by first claiming that they all lead to God, which they define according to Panentheism, the True Self, and then condition them further to see their religion as a mere vehicle to New Age Spirituality. The result is that the religious paradigm shifts, and the New Age concept of God usurps previously held beliefs, which are now discarded in as much as those teachings conflict with what they have now found within the New Age. In the end, the person comes to accept all the tenants of New Age Spirituality, to a greater or lesser degree, and will perceive anything contrary to it as a product of the egoic mind – a structure and conditioning known as the false self.

Often people who have been drawn into the New Age Movement retain their membership to whichever religion they previously preferred in order to spread New Age teachings further, and will at times encourage people in it as long as they adopt New Age ideas. It is a slow, subtle, and deceptive process of syncretism19, a blurring of distinctions, until ultimately the previously held positions are either absorbed, subsumed, or abandoned according to the New Age paradigm.

D. New Age Mind-Conditioning Technique

Frannie continues to dismiss the Church which Christ established with divine authority and which the saints have defended with their blood. Frannie teaches that we are to empty our mind of revelation and simply listen to this spirit about who God is. “We miss seeing God because we think we know about him... we have been told in Church...”20 “...today we don't know anything about God, we are going to let God tell us about him, or her...”21

Frannie leads people away from the scriptural teaching of testing the spirits by the revelation of Christ and the teaching of the Church. “Even when people begin to hear God's voice the first thing they do is they question whether or not its God, because they allow their mind to analyze what their hearing, if they let go of the analyzing of what their hearing and allow their hearts to come into the situation, they know its God.”22 During an interview on the Rocky Mountain Views, the host asked Frannie: “How do you know you are talking to God, how do you know you are not talking to the devil?” To which Frannie simply said: “...somehow in your heart you know it is right.”23 She has also stated: “...minds don't pretend, but if you are really hearing the voice of God, God speaks in gentle, kind, and loving ways and our minds don't do that, our minds are critical, they speak negatively, they look for what's wrong in a situation... the mind is always looking for the imperfection...”24

When she was asked if there was reincarnation she responded by choosing not to answer, but rather said that we should be asking God these questions, and then listen to what his answer is.25

To the contrary, the New Age uses mind conditioning techniques such as emptying the mind, or creating space through unlearning, in order to circumvent the discernment process which God told us to use in order to recognize if a spirit is from God or not, that is, to test it against the revelation of Christ and the teaching of his apostles through the Catholic Church. It is a common experience within the New Age to receive spirits that are accompanied by feelings of gentleness, kindness, and contain words which are spoken in loving ways. There are many, many documented cases of people who have experienced peace and tranquility when encountered by a spirit through the New Age. Additionally, Frannie continues to cast the mind in a negative light, which is another tactic to lead people to question what they have already learned in order to make people more receptive to this spirit. “And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.”26

“...there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them... many will follow... and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.”27

III. The Panentheism Heresy and its Concomitants28

A. Panentheism Defined

Frannie's New Age world view stems directly from her most basic philosophical assumption of Panentheism. Panentheism comes from the Greek: , 'everything'; , 'in'; , 'God'. “Everything in God”. Despite what the term denotes, the teaching of Panentheism is not to be confused with the teaching of the immanence of God in Christian Theism. Panentheism is defined as:

“The theory that the world is part of God, though not the whole of his being. ...a part of God is the universe and a part is simply God.”
  • Modern Catholic Dictionary

“The belief that the Being of God includes... the whole universe, so that every part of it exists in Him, but... that His Being is more than, and is not exhausted by, the universe.”
  • The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church

Frannie Rose rejects the Catholic teaching that all extra-Divine things were created ex nihilo and remain distinct from God in all respects, but rather teaches that “God was in everything around me, inside me, and greater than what was around me and inside me. God was all and more.”29 She has also written that we are all “a piece of God-self”, and that “We are a spark of God-Self. God is... the very essence of our spirit.”30 This spirit who refers to itself as 'I Am' has told her that “...you have always known Me. You are united with Me through all eternity.”31 In the context of encouraging people to empty their minds in order to listen to the voice of this spirit she states: “...we’re not going to become ‘a mind,’ we’re going to be God, unlimited mind.”32 “God-consciousness is infinite, it’s eternal, unlimited by thought and perception – ‘I AM,’ unrefined by the ego.”33

Such teachings are indistinguishable from the New Age teachings of Mark and Elizabeth Clare Prophet:

“...Jesus knows his True Self to be the Light-emanation of this Christ that always was, is, and ever shall be. And he wants you to know that your Real Self is also that selfsame Light.”34

“Jesus' I AM Presence looks just like yours. This is the common denominator. This is the co-equality of the sons and daughters of God. He created you equal in the sense that he gave you an I AM Presence – he gave you a Divine Self.”35

Likewise, the teaching of deceiving spirits who work through mediums36, an occult practice, also teach that we are God. In fact, Frannie herself serves as a medium when she publicizes the teachings of the spirit that refers to itself as 'I AM' in her book The Invitation.

A spirit that referred to itself as 'Ramtha' working through the medium J. Z. Knight taught: “God, the principal, is all things.”37 Another spirit that referred to itself as 'Jesus' working through the medium Helen Schucman taught: “The recognition of God is the recognition of yourself. There is no separation of God and His creation.”38 Another spirit that referred to itself as 'Seth' working through the medium Jane Roberts taught: “...there is nothing else but God – only God exists... All is God.”39 This is a very common experience within the New Age.

To the contrary:

“All that exists outside God was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by God.”40

“... although He is one, singular, altogether simple and unchangeable spiritual substance, must be proclaimed distinct in reality and essence from the world... from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing...”41

Therefore, there is an absolute distinction between the transcendent God, who is Wholly Other, and what we are. No aspect of ourselves were nor will ever be God in any way, to any degree, and any language that suggests otherwise is irresponsible, dangerous, and heretical.

Even the incarnation of Christ, a union of two natures which maintained each nature “...without mingling, without change... the distinction of the natures nowhere removed on account of the union...”42

Every one of Frannie's teachings are permeated with this basic, fundamental philosophical assumption. Her teachings concerning the True Self, of our inner Perfection, and the use of the term “God-consciousness” are all deeply rooted in Panentheism. Her teachings of the mind/heart conflict and listening to an inner voice all stem from a denial of Christian Theism.

B. The True Self
For example, the New Age teaching of the True Self is directly rooted in the Panentheistic world view. The following quotation from Thomas Keating43 puts this into perspective: “God and our true Self are not separate. Though we are not God, God and our true Self are the same thing.”44 Likewise Frannie Rose defines the True Self as “God +The Seeds of the Spirit”45. This language concerning the True Self can be confusing outside of a Panentheistic world view. Since Panentheism maintains that a part of God is the universe and a part is simply God, then the True Self can be said to be the same as that part of God that is the universe, and yet at the same time we are not God, in that we are not also that part of God that is simply God. The centering prayer movement, like the teachings of Frannie Rose, are “understood to be an infiltration of New Age/Hindu/Buddhist thought into traditional Catholic mysticism”.4647

C. Perfection and the New Age Version of Original Sin

Likewise, she rejects the Church's understanding of original sin but rather believes that we are perfect the moment we are born. Because she rejects the Catholic doctrine of a transcendent God who created all of us from nothing, she therefore believes that we are part of God and as such this part of us is perfect. “God pulls us back to the union that we were born to. The truth is that your heart and God are together as One... Your awareness when you came out of the birth canal was of the present moment. I was of the “I AM.”48 “You are originally unlimited and perfect. Later, you take on limitations.”49 “This is perfection. It is the only part of you that is perfect.”50 “...what happens is that we were always 'we' from the time of birth and what we did through our conditioning is that we walked away from that...kind of like the original sin... the way its taught is sometimes distorted...”51 “This is who you were and what you sought until the mind complicated things.”52 According to Frannie Rose, we are included in the being of God, and at some point we 'walked away from the voice of God' by entering into the delusion of duality. In other words, the 'original sin' of New Age Spirituality is that we lost sight of God-consciousness and began to take on a false self that we perceived as distinct from God, and therefore began to live out of the egoic mind. 'Salvation' within the New Age paradigm is seen as the journey of self-realization, of awakening, or of enlightenment, coming back to that original God-consciousness, that we are God.53

IV. The Church's Ultimate Trial

“Before Christ's second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the 'mystery of iniquity' in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his messiah come in the flesh.”54

  • New Age Spirituality is a “form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth.”

  • Through the influence of New Age Spirituality people come to believe in the heresy of Panentheism and by which they identify themselves with God. This is the manner in which one “...glorifies himself in place of God...”

  • New Age Spirituality rejects and leads people away from the unique and exclusive incarnation of God and the Church which He established. This is the manner in which one denies “his messiah come in the flesh” “This is the spirit of antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.”55

VI. Request for Ecclesiastical Censure

We formally request immediate and public censure of One Simple Voice and those involved on account of the heresies contained therein. As an “obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith...”,56 it is clear that Frannie Rose has not only adopted material heresy but has been actively promoting it within the diocese despite being confronted with Catholic teaching. Thus far she is properly defined as a material heretic.

If she rejects any Catholic teaching but yet continues to pretend that she doesn't is a grave offense and is a blatant lie and is scandalous when done within the context of the public liturgy. If she recites the Nicene Creed but yet believes in Panentheism, or partakes of the Eucharist knowing that she is not in full communion with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, or hypocritically pretends to be a Catholic by being a member but yet rejects the unique incarnation of God and the fullness of truth within the Catholic Church, but instead believes in New Age Spirituality, especially Panentheism, then she incurs automatic excommunication for her heresy.

“An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication...”57

“A person who deliberately denies even one of the doctrines of the Church cannot be a Catholic.”58

While I leave her moral culpability in the hands of God, it can not be denied that Frannie Rose is not excused by invincible ignorance, for the knowledge of her error must be apparent to her through our writings and any conversations which have taken place concerning the matter. Through these efforts Frannie Rose has been given sufficient time to recant her positions, gain a properly formed conscience under the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, and repair the damage that has been caused by the introduction of these destructive heresies.

To the contrary, she has obstinately continued in her heresy and remains actively engaged in promulgating the same despite being notified of her error.

I prefer that her de facto state of excommunication be recognized and enforced within the Church according to Canon Law. The Catechism of the Catholic Church likewise indicates that such a state of excommunication “...impedes the reception of the sacraments...”59 In my opinion, the continual allowance of participation within the Church is a scandal and should cease immediately. All necessary action should be taken to ensure that Bishop Hanifen, Frannie Rose, and any other Catholics involved in One Simple Voice are censured from all Church involvement, the reception of the sacraments, and association with the diocese, until which time they recant their errors, repent of their heresy, and cease the promulgation of the same. Above all, the Catholic faithful need to be properly warned of these heresies in order that they may not be led astray from their sincere and pure devotion to Christ, and the fullness of his revelation which subsists within the Catholic Church.

I know that I have written strongly concerning the matter and as I stated before do not intent to disrespect you or anyone else. In this research I have done my best to remain objective and to report my findings as they are and to assess the consequences of the situation as it is. Despite myself, I hope that the truthfulness and seriousness of the continuance of Frannie's participation in the Catholic Church will be recognized for the sake of the faithful everywhere.

Thank you for your careful and compassionate consideration of this letter and these circumstances.

Sincerely,


Corey L. Chambers


1 These interactions can be seen here in the comments upon this video. You may also be interested in the entire playlist as I set out to help educate Catholics on the dangers of Frannie's teachings: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP_PXf90edk&list=PLeVjnsYkDEhoFLhC3a1G9O18YL6WgvTey
2 In her previous book, Fixing Frannie, she includes the following in her book list: The Way of the Wizard. The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success. Among other books written by Chopra is The Third Jesus, showing his view concerning “Christ-consciousness”, a synonymous term with God-consciousness. Chopra denies the unique incarnation of Jesus but rather presents a New Age Jesus where he shows us that we too are One with the Father, just as Jesus is, a Divine Self. See Marcia Montenegro's article on this book: http://christiananswersforthenewage.org/Articles_ChoprasThirdJesus.html
3 She stated on her Linked In page, before removing it at the request of Bishop Hanifen, that Deepak Chopra was her greatest influence.
4 She engages in a discussion about Tolle in her Rocky Mountain Views interview series and has quoted him several times in her book, The Invitation.
5 In her previous book, Fixing Frannie, she includes the following in her book list: The Celestine Vision. The Tenth Insight.
The Celestine Prophecy. See Montenegro's article: http://christiananswersforthenewage.org/Articles_Celestine.html
6 In her previous book, Fixing Frannie, she includes the following in her book list: Seat of the Soul. Soul Stories. Heart of the Soul. See article reviewing Gary Zukav: http://www.watchman.org/articles/new-age/gary-zukav--a-failure-to-name-evil/
7 1 John 4:1
8 1 Timothy 4:1
9 1 John 4:2b-3b
10 Rose, Frannie. The Invitation, 78.
11 Ibid, 59.
12 Ibid, 78.
13 Ibid, 59-60.
14 Ibid, 60.
15 Traditionally within the New Age Movement this age of peace that is sought has been referred to as the Age of Aquarius, it is an era of enlightenment and peace.
16 Rose, Frannie. The Invitation, 193.
17 Rocky Mountain Views, Interview with Frannie Rose
18 John 17:3
19 “Hardon, John. Modern Catholic Dictionary, 529. “...the term mainly refers to misguided claims that religious unity can be achieved by ignoring the differences between faiths on the assumption that all creeds are essentially one and the same.”
20 Spoken at a One Simple Voice Seminar in July 2012, preserved as video content
21 Spoken at a One Simple Voice Seminar in July 2012, preserved as video content
22 Rocky Mountain Views, Interview with Frannie Rose
23 Rocky Mountain Views, Interview with Frannie Rose
24 The Mystic Show, Interview with Frannie Rose
25 Rocky Mountain Views, Interview with Frannie Rose
26 2 Corinthians 11:14
27 2 Peter 2:1-2
28 It is possible that Frannie is a strict Pantheist, maintaining the monistic perspective that all is God, and God is all.
29 Rose, Frannie. The Invitation, 77.
30 Ibid, 21, 101.
31 Ibid, 75.
32 Spoken at a One Simple Voice Seminar in July 2012, preserved as video content
33 Spoken at a One Simple Voice Seminar in July 2012, preserved as video content
34 Prophet/Prophet, The Lost Teachings of Jesus 1: Missing Texts, Karma and Reincarnation, 115-16.
35 Prophet/Prophet, The Lost Teachings of Jesus 2: Mysteries of the Higher Self, 62.
36 Occult practices, including mediums, are condemned by God in Deuteronomy 18:9-14.
37 Mahr, Douglas. Ramtha, Voyage to the New World, 250.
38 Schucman, Helen. A Course in Miracles, 1:136
39 Roberts, Jane. The Seth Material, 237-38.
40 Ott, Ludwig. Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 79
41 Denzinger, Henry. The Sources of Catholic Dogma, pg 443. 1782-1783 quoting Vatican I
42 Chalcedonian Declaration
43 Bishop Hanifen has stated that he knows Keating personally. Hanifen also stated that he sees no problem with Panentheism. When asked about its definition he did not respond.
44 Keating, Thomas. Open Mind, Open Heart, 158.
45 Rose, Frannie. The Invitation, 105.
46 The work of John Morrison in A Response to Bishop Hanifen's Defense of One Simple Voice and to his Response to the Critique is highly recommended for further review of the New Age Movement and all the similarities to the teachings of Frannie Rose.
47 Connie Rossini, Is Centering Prayer Catholic?: Fr. Thomas Keating Meets Teresa of Avila and the CDF (New Ulm, MN: Four Waters, 2015)
48 Spoken at a One Simple Voice Seminar, found in Morrison's A Response to Bishop Hanifen.
49 Spoken at a One Simple Voice Seminar, found in Morrison's A Response to Bishop Hanifen.
50 Spoken at a One Simple Voice Seminar, found in Morrison's A Response to Bishop Hanifen.
51 The Mystic Show, Interview with Frannie Rose
52 Spoken at a One Simple Voice Seminar, found in Morrison's A Response to Bishop Hanifen.
53 When Frannie was asked if she was enlightened on the Mysitic show she stated: “I was all of that, I would say I was all of that, I was awakened, I was enlightened, some of the experiences were like the Buddhist term satori…”
54 Catechism of the Catholic Church, 675
55 1 John 4:3b
56 Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2089
57 Code of Canon Law, 1364
58 Baltimore Catechism, 156 d
59 Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1463

Wednesday, April 27, 2016

Examining Frannie #10: Reading List from Fixing Frannie

In my previous blog posts I had stated that the reading list from Frannie’s book Fixing Frannie contains New Age authors. In this post I will show the reading list and comment upon some of the notable New Age authors that not only have influenced her religious formation but which she recommends to her readers. The substantive information concerning these authors will be found at the links in each of the sections. Reading these articles will give you a better insight into the religious influences upon Frannie.

Marcia Montenegro of CANA/Christian Answers for the New Age was also a contributor to this blog post. You can find out more about her ministry at www.christiananswersforthenewage.org

Jung, C.G.

Jung was into the occult and pagan religions and can ultimately be referred to as a panentheist basing itself in a monistic worldview. For Jung there is a collective unconsciousness, a concept which Jung felt was proved by his principle of synchronicity. A book by Jung by the name Synchronicity can be found in the reading list of Frannie’s book, Fixing Frannie.

Deepak Chopra

Deepak Chopra is one of the most well-known and successful New Age writers in the U.S. and maybe the West. Seven Spiritual Laws of Success presents such New Age concepts as pantheism and karma. He talks of success but achieving them is partly based on New Age worldviews.

Among other books written by Chopra is "The Third Jesus," about which an article was written showing his view concerning “Christ-consciousness”, a synonymous term with God-consciousness. Chopra denies the unique incarnation of Jesus but rather presents a New Age Jesus where he shows us that we too are One with the Father, just as he is.

http://christiananswersforthenewage.org/Articles_ChoprasThirdJesus.html

James Redfield

James Redfield lays out New Age principles in The Celestine Prophecy, including the belief that all is energy and as one spiritually advances, his body vibrates at a higher frequency and becomes lighter. He states that this is why Jesus was able to walk on water. The climax of the book is the teaching that you can advance to the point of your body disappearing, and he writes that this is why it appeared that Jesus ascended into heaven. Jesus did not really ascend, he just "lost" his body due to his high spiritual vibration.

New Age books don't just conflict with Christianity; they attack it. Montenegro’s article on this book: http://christiananswersforthenewage.org/Articles_Celestine.html

Redfield's The Tenth Insight is merely a continuation of The Celestine Prophecy (which presented "nine insights").

Gary Zukav

Zukav believes we create our own reality and that the present material world is illusory. The following is an article on Zukav's book, Seat of the Soul.

http://www.watchman.org/articles/new-age/gary-zukav--a-failure-to-name-evil/

Reading List (2nd ed.)
[i]

The reading list was expanded in the second edition, two years after the first printing in 2001, adding two books from Chopra, two more from Zukav, and two more from Redfield.

Chopra, Deepak. The Way of the Wizard. Harmony Books, 1995

Chopra, Deepak. The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success. Amber-Allen Publishing, 1993.

Cousins, Norman. Anatomy of an Illness. Bantam, 1980.

Cousins, Norman. The Celebration of Life. Harper and Row, 1974.

Cousins, Norman. Head First. Penguin Books, 1989.

Church, Dawson and Sherr, Alan. The Heart of the Healer. Asian Publishing, 1987.

Frankl, Viktor. Man’s Search For Meaning. Washington Square Press, 1959.

Frankl, Viktor. The Doctor and the Soul. Vintage Books. 1980.

Hillesum, Etty. An Interrupted Life. Henry Holt and Company, 1996.

Jung, C.G. Synchronicity. Trans. R. F. C. Hull. Princeton University Press, 1969.

Mollette, Glenn. Silent Struggler. GMA Publishing and Inspiration Press, 2001.

Redfield, James. The Celestine Vision. Warner Books, 1997.

Redfield, James. The Tenth Insight.Warner Books, 1996.

Redfield, James. The Celestine Prophecy. Warner Books, 1993.

Siegle, Bernie, MD. Love, Medicine, Miracles. Harper and Row Publishers, 1986.

Siegle, Bernie, MD. Peace, Love and Healing. Harper and Row Publishers, 1989.

Zukav, Gary. Seat of the Soul. Simon and Schuster, 1989.

Zukav, Gary. Soul Stories. Simon and Schuster, 2000.

Zukav, Gary, Francis, Linda. Heart of the Soul. Simon and Schuster, 2001.

[i] Rose, Frannie. (2003) Fixing Frannie (2nd ed.). Newburgh, Indiana: GMA Publishing.

Sunday, April 17, 2016

Examining Frannie #9: On Biblical Interpretation

“Sometimes with the people I work with especially those trained in theology I ask them to take the interpretations which they were taught and put it on a shelf and let God teach them the way the scriptures read. And so when they hear God's voice and their doing, you know, doing a sermon or homily or just doing a talk on theology then they are able to use what God told them... And then they take their books back and the message then has great depth their able to put the two together.”

Mind Conditioning in the New Age

In this blog post I wish to convey to you the importance of biblical interpretation and the subtitles that are often involved in discerning differences between interpretations presented by the New Age movement and those of historic orthodox Christianity.

The most problematic aspect of Frannie's entire body of teaching is that she speaks to us in a manner that assumes at the offset that what we think in the matters of God are erroneous. This method is very effective with those who may feel uncertain about what they think about God, be dissatisfied with inadequate answers they have received so far concerning difficult aspects to the Christian faith, or have labored under false understandings due to poor catechesis that opens them to want a better alternative.

Marcia Montenegro, an expert in the New Age and how they attempt to influence Christians, explains it this way: “To keep dismissing our previous beliefs or knowledge is a way to undermine any Christian teaching or concepts we've had previously. This is really a form of mind conditioning and is common in the New Age.”

In other words, the concepts and rhetoric that she uses is specifically designed to lead us away from what we have known to be revealed by God in order that we will be much more receptive to her teachings about how we relate to Him. In all the language that she uses about the egoic mind and the complete dismissal of what we know about God is meant to prepare our mind for a new set of teachings. We are to put aside what we have known to be true through the Church as revealed through Scripture and Tradition so that we will more readily accept an alternative view, presumably based upon a higher authority, which surprisingly will be consistent with what she will teach us.

This method is employed to condition our minds for better receptivity to accepting a New Age paradigm. A more direct route would be to reason with us concerning the details of her teaching. However, this would most likely be ineffective because we know better, which is why she does not engage in public responses to our concerns within the diocese, or publicly admit certain aspects of her teaching such as when she declined to respond to whether she maintained reincarnation on one of the Rocky Mountain Views interviews. However, if she can get us to set our presuppositions aside in order to accept a “voice within” with little to no discernment, then she can undercut the entire Christian revelation, and increase the possibility that a spirit which teaches differently than what we have already received through the Church will begin to influence us.

The Task of Exegesis

The academic process of being mindful of one's presuppositions and being honest about one's certainty concerning the meaning of a passage is an extremely important aspect of allowing Scripture and the teachings of the Church to assist us in growing in our understanding. We most certainly are to have an openness to learning more about Scripture and the theology of the Catholic Church otherwise we will not be able to discern New Age deceptions, nor know the difference between the way that New Age gurus quote Scripture and the meaning of them which is retained within the Church, the difference between this meaning and one proposed by “the wisdom from within”.

The task of exegesis is to draw out the original intent of the passage within its own historic context and literary genre. A discipline that requires openness to where the evidence leads over against interpretations we may have picked up at some point in time, such as when Frannie says “Jesus teaches this as well”.

If however in doing this a spirit proposes a meaning that is not consistent with the Christian faith then to put the two together would lead one into error and end up accepting a New Age interpretation which is contrary to historic orthodox Christianity. The more uncertain a person is about the meaning of a particular passage the more impressionable they will be towards proposed interpretations.

A friend of mine who had been involved in the New Age movement while attending an evangelical denomination said that he would receive biblical inspiration from a spirit that made the Scriptures come alive. Excited concerning his insights he wanted to share these wonderful interpretations with everyone. When he was delivered from demonic possession and began to learn Scripture through the Church he found that the sense in which he once understood certain passages from a New Age perspective were found to mean the complete opposite now that he understood the text according to the Church.

The New Age has more of an esoteric approach to biblical interpretation which would be more driven by a spirit speaking to us and we come to know that it is true in more of an intuitive manner.

Scripture is to be read within its broader apostolic, communal, and ecclesiastical contexts; that is, within the heart of the Church. Concerning our reading of Scripture Vincent of Lerins, in his A Commonitory, gives us a clear and succinct explanation of the necessity of this approach:

“With great zeal and closest attention, therefore, I frequently inquired of many men, eminent for their holiness and doctrine, how I might, in a concise and, so to speak, general and ordinary way, distinguish the truth of the Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical depravity. I received almost always the same answer from all of them—that if I or anyone else wanted to expose the frauds and escape the snares of the heretics who rise up, and to remain intact and in sound faith, it would be necessary, with the help of the Lord, to fortify that faith in a twofold manner: first, of course, by the authority of divine law [Scripture] and then by the tradition of the Catholic Church.

“Here, perhaps, someone may ask: ‘If the canon of the scriptures be perfect and in itself more than suffices for everything, why is it necessary that the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation be joined to it?’ Because, quite plainly, sacred Scripture, by reason of its own depth, is not accepted by everyone as having one and the same meaning… Thus, because of so many distortions of such various errors, it is highly necessary that the line of prophetic and apostolic interpretation be directed in accord with the norm of the ecclesiastical and Catholic meaning.”

A New Age Interpretation

Here is a case in point: In John 8:56-59 it states “Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad” “You are no yet fifty years old,” the Jews said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!” “I tell you the truth.” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” At this, they picked up stone to stone him...”

New Agers Mark and Elizabeth Clare Prophet interpret this passage in a way different than historic orthodox Christianity:

“...Jesus knows his True Self to be the Light-emanation of this Christ that always was, is, and ever shall be. And he wants you to know that your Real Self is also that selfsame Light.”i

“Jesus' I AM Presence looks just like yours. This is the common denominator. This is the co-equality of the sons and daughters of God. He created you equal in the sense that he gave you an I AM Presence – he gave you a Divine Self”ii

Likewise, Jesus states that “I and the Father are One” (John 10:30). New Agers will take this to mean that just as Jesus came to identify himself as one with God then we too need to come to this same realization that our heart and God are together as One. Through this enlightenment, this God-consciousness, we come to realize that we are not sinful creatures but are unlimited and perfect in our True Self. We're not going to be saved from our sins by the blood of Jesus, the only God-man, but we're going to be God, unlimited mind.

And why not? Doesn't Jesus tell us that “I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one...” (John 17:22).

New Agers often quote Jesus more than any other spiritual teacher and by doing so add credence to their own teachings. Ideas which would otherwise seem absurd to us can become much more acceptable if couched in the words of Jesus. Perhaps Frannie would tell us that the Jews picked up stones because they were following a religion which was the product of the egoic mind, and as a result the Jews were prone to violence for this reason. And that they rejected the enlightenment that we can have God-consciousness, an awareness that our heart and God are together as One. Franne tells us that “God-consciousness is infinite, it’s eternal, unlimited by thought and perception – ‘I AM,’ unrefined by the ego.”

Therefore, once we set aside our understanding of this passage that 1) Jesus claims the divine name “I AM” exclusively for himself, and 2) the Jews picked up stones to stone Jesus because they saw this as blasphemy, then we are open to accepting other interpretations, especially those proposed by the New Age.

Worldview Confusion

Everyone has a worldview built upon a set of presuppositions. We do this as an attempt to create coherence out of everything that we come to know. When someone with a New Age worldview approaches Scripture they tend to take the words from text and bring them into the context of their New Age teachings. They see the words used by Jesus and endow them with a meaning which is foreign to the original context.

One of the best examples of worldview confusion was brought to my attention by James Sire in his book Scripture Twisting: 20 Ways the Cults Misread the Bible. If you have not read this book, then you owe it to yourself to familiarize yourself with all the different ways that one can use Scripture to come to alternative interpretations which are not consistent with historic orthodox Christianity.

After Paul healed a man who had been lame from birth we shall see the crowd witnessing the miracle exemplify worldview confusion.

“When the crowd saw what Paul had done, they shouted in the Lycaonian language, 'The gods have come down to us in human form!' Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul they called Hermes because he was the chief speaker. The priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the city, brought bulls and wreaths to the city gates because he and the crowd wanted to offer sacrifices to them” (Acts 14:11-13).

The crowd continued to misunderstand what they were seeing and continued to offer sacrifices to the apostles even after Paul and Barnabas spoke further about who they were and who God was. This is what happens when a New Age guru misinterprets the words of Jesus. They come to the text of Scripture with their presuppositions and come away understanding them in a manner different than their original intent in the same manner as the crowd misunderstood Paul and Barnabas by bringing their own religious perspective into the situation which was foreign to the actual context. If a spirit gives us an interpretation of Scripture which is contrary to the results of exegesis and to the teachings of the Church then it is to be rejected, and never put together with what we have already known.

The False Dilemma and the Voice of God

The method Frannie presents of setting aside interpretations which we have been taught opens us up to the possibility of being influenced by New Age interpretations of Scripture such as the entire God-consciousness paradigm. We know that Frannie has stated that Deepak Chopra has been her greatest influence and we know that he maintains this New Age perspective as seen in his book, The Third Jesus. And Frannie attempts to support this method by using an axiom: “God can't teach you what you think you already know”.

Why can't God teach me something if I think I already know it? If I already know God's revelation through Jesus Christ, then there is nothing different that God will need to teach me about it. People who may not know the rational content of revelation or how God has revealed himself to us may not feel very certain that they understand it in all its aspects. The idea that God can't teach them unless they let go of what they think they know is what opens people up to New Age teachings and makes them more vulnerable to suggestion. We want to take what we know and bring it with us so that we can do a comparative analysis between what we think and the objective evidence that we find through the exegetical method, and the teachings of the Catholic Church. While doing this there certainly has been times when an idea or two that we have thought has been inconsistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church, but this does not require the method that Frannie is proposing. There is a difference between being actively aware of our ideas, maintaining some of them in a more tentative manner than others, and being honest with oneself concerning our presuppositions, and completely allowing ourselves to be brainwashed through New Age conditioning techniques!
  • Saul on the Road to Damascus
Frannie states: “Be as empty as you can be, because God requires the space, if we don't give space to God He has no way for us to have an awareness of Him...”

God does not require the space at all. God can and will speak to us when he determines to do so. Consider the way that God approached Saul while he was on the road to Damascus. “As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heave flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, 'Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?'” (Acts 9:3-4).

With Frannie it is usually the inverse of what she is trying to teach you. To be sure, sometimes God uses a still, small voice while we are reflecting upon nature, engaged in prayer, or through our reading of Scripture, and sometimes he will knock you off your horse. God does have a way for us to have an awareness of Him which does not involve us being empty.
  • Deny Ourselves
Matthew 16:24-25 “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it.” Matthew 10:39: “Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.”

Frannie uses this latter verse in her presentation to convey that we must be empty, and that we must let go of our way. Certainly our sinful hearts could keep us from confessing our sins and pridefully rejecting the blood of Christ for the cleansing of our sins but this is not the manner in which Frannie uses this verse. We are not to deny our nature as distinct creatures of God in order to find the True Self, which is One with God. We are not to deny the Christian revelation which has been preserved within the Church in order to listen to another “voice of wisdom”. The denial which Christ is talking about is a call to live a life of holiness and to be set apart for God's exclusive use for works of service and sharing the gospel that Christ died for our sins. It would be far better for a Christian to give his life to the mouths of lions than to live a life dedicated to the pursuit of lustful pleasures, or worst, abandon our minds by dragging them through the empty space of New Age spirituality.
  • The Gentle Voice of God
Frannie states: “It will be God that answers... And how do you know if it is God or not? As I said before if what is said to you is different than the critical messages we give to ourselves...”

“ if you are really hearing the voice of God, God speaks in gentle, kind, and loving ways”

Jesus tells us that when he sends us the Holy Spirit, “he will expose the guilt of the world...” (John 16:5). However, Frannie thinks that guilt is useless and is the mere product of the egoic mind lying to us about who we are. However, it is the opposite of what Frannie teaches. The prideful person says that they have not sinned and therefore guilt has no place, while it is the humble person with the contrite heart who seeks forgiveness from the Father who truly knows how corrupt their heart has been.

Hearing from God will not always be pleasant, in fact, if you spend any amount of time reading through Scripture you will find plenty of moments when God disciplines his children, rebukes them, and punishes them for their sins (Hebrews 12:5-11). Jesus in a fit of righteous indignation flipped tables in the temple courts and often called the pharisees white-washed tombs, among other things, and he was God incarnate. How are we supposed to be convicted of our sins if we just categorize those thoughts as the egoic mind lying to us in order to keep us living in the past, keeping us from our perfect True Self? It is a dangerous teaching that leads one to interpret the acts of the Holy Spirit as if it were the acts of the egoic mind. This is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit!
  • The Extent of Frannie's Discernment
Frannie states: “Even when people begin to hear God's voice the first thing they do is they question whether or not its God, because they allow their mind to analyze what their hearing, if they let go of the analyzing of what their hearing and allow their hearts to come into the situation, they know its God.”

As I demonstrated in a previous blog post, the mind and the heart are both unified as core aspects of our inner person. Why shouldn't we bring all of ourselves in order to relate with God? Did God not design us in such a manner? Does he not now restore us to the image and likeness of God?

Besides, why shouldn't we question a voice that comes to us? Do you deny the existence of deceiving spirits? Analyzing the message we are receiving is exactly how we test the spirits! We have to have a way in order to determine whether they are from God or not. And this test can not be subject to feelings or mere personal experience. It must be consistent with Scripture as it is understood by the Catholic Church.

“Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out in to the world” (1 John 4:1).

"The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons" (1 Timothy 4:1).

Frannie states: “When we hear the voice of God we know it because there is this peace that envelopes you... its not a question of what you are thinking about it, it is a question of what you are feeling when you hear it.”

A friend of mine who was once in the New Age movement recounts a time when he was lying in his bed and a voice called out his name. At the time he thought that it was the Lord speaking to him and so he responded with openness. In the next moment the spirit swirled over him and then landed on top of him. At this point he experienced a state of peace envelope him which was beyond words to describe. Despite all that seemed right with the experience it turned out to be a deceptive spirit that led him further into the New Age.

On one of the Rocky Mountain Views interviews Martha Thompson asked Frannie: "How do you know you are talking to God, how do you know you are not talking to the devil?” After an ambiguous answer she says that "somehow in your heart you know it is right". To the contrary, this is not sufficient.

In the Book of Mormon it states: “And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true, and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things” (Moroni 10:4-5).

No matter the content that is involved in this subjective method of seeking a 'burning in the bosom' experience it can not safely be used to determine the truthfulness of a teaching. Certainly the Holy Spirit will guide us into all truth (John 16:13a) and the two men on the road to Emmaus certainly felt their hearts burning within them (Luke 24:32). But in the first instance it was to the apostles that these words were spoken, the foundation of the Church. It is to the Church that we look for that truth to be preserved and expressed in its fullness. In the second instance Jesus himself was interpreting the Old Testament in a manner which revealed who He was to them, which was consistent with what the apostles taught. This story would not have been included in the text if it were not an authentic case, consistent with the teaching of the Church.

Conclusion

Be wise in your discernment. Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings. There are deceiving spirits who wish to teach you things which are contrary to the Church, and use Scripture in order to do it. We must be on guard and defend that faith which was once and for all given unto the saints. Do not be afraid to stand up for the truth or be ashamed of the gospel of Christ. “If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally anathema” (Galatians 1:9). Pray that the false teachings within the Diocese of Colorado Springs will no longer been seen as compatible with Christianity, and especially for those who have been involved with One Simple Voice, such as Richard Hanifen, Frannie Rose, and all those who refer to themselves as her students. May God enlighten the eyes of their hearts.

i Prophet/Prophet, The Lost Teachings of Jesus 1: Missing Texts, Karma and Reincarnation, pp. 115-16.

ii Prophet/Prophet, The Lost Teachings of Jesus 2: Mysteries of the Higher Self, p.62.

A Consideration of Simulation Theory in Relation to Classical Theism

In my previous message I raised a number of objections against the simulation hypothesis. The first was the proposal that “the moon is a hol...