Elizabeth Williams: "I do question his mental stability at present."

A letter, reportedly from Elizabeth Williams, wife of Father Matthew Williams, has been made public. JTO is releasing the content here: Note: This letter has not been verified as having been sent or received. Void of a signature, it cannot be authenticated. 

                Monday, October 28, 2024 

Dear Fr Serge, 

Your blessing! Things are continuing to deteriorate as Fr Matthew will not respect my daughter and my requests for space. In very clear words, I asked him not to come to the farm/house today as we were emotionally exhausted after he took [Child A] without my consent and slept with her alone in his car in the middle of the night at a rest stop and the various other ways in which he disregarded Fr John's directives to not be alone with the girls or to come around us without my explicit permission. Disregarding my requests, and Fr John once again reminding him to get permission, on the contrary, he arrived at our house this morning and tried to get in. I messaged him asking him to honor my and [Child Victim]'s explicit requests for him to not be there (for one day only!), but he proceeded to work on repair projects under the house and waited until the children woke up and let him in. Father, I am trying to avoid a scene in front of the small children, so I did not say anything when he came in, but quickly left the property with the children. I messaged Fr John and he sent Fr Matthew a text asking him to leave and not return without my permission. With Fr John's blessing, I am now applying for a restraining order as he will not listen to his spiritual father, or his family. My daughters have made it clear that they will report him to child protective services if he does not stop putting their little sisters at risk by being alone with them sleeping in cars, in bedrooms (he took Lucy from me the other night at his mother's and snuck off and lay down in a bed alone with her), etc. I'm afraid that this is where we are. I do question his mental stability at present. He has a history of violence towards me and towards himself when I don't submit to him and I am concerned for my, and the children’s safety at this time. The restraining order will bar him from speaking to the children or entering the property until a court date. He is spreading rumors to the [Names] and others that I am mentally unstable and seeking extramarital affairs. As God and my spiritual father as my witnesses, there is absolutely no foundation in those accusations. These are projections of his own sins. That I have been extremely emotionally and physically drained by all of this drama and revelation of abuse, with this, I would wholeheartedly concur. Trying to care for and educate five children single-handedly is absolutely exhausting. Adding in trying to be an emotion support to parishioners as a matushka, along the grief of my spouse's many betrayals would tax anyone. Those who know me and spend time with me on a regulate basis (this excludes the [Names]) can testify to my mental stability better than I, and I would encourage anyone concerned about such to simply ask our joint spiritual father or family members on both sides which of the two of us has a history of mental instability. I confess and have sought guidance from Fr John on a nearly weekly basis for the twenty seven years I have been in the Church. I put my trust in God, and ask your prayers! Please feel free to share this with the metropolitan at your discretion. 

 

In Christ, Elizabeth

Note: Via: http://frmatthewwilliams.com

Father Matthew Williams Blames Medication

A text from Father Matthew Williams has been made public in which he blames psychiatric medication for his sexual crimes. He states the problem began in 2012, which begs the question: To what does he attribute the cause of his sexual crimes which occurred before that year? Was it a vitamin deficiency, perhaps? Read Rape and the Holy Man.

True confession and repentance is a vital part of redemption. Anything less is deception and fraud. Are you listening, ROCOR?

 

Via http://frmatthewwilliams.com

Where is the Trinity in the Bible?

2:55 minutes may ruin your religion. Can you handle it? Have you been told the truth about the history of the Orthodox Councils? For instance, did you know the doctrine of the Trinity was not even formulated until the middle of the 5th century in the Council of Chalcedon?

Another Cover-up

It seems the Orthodox hierarchy have been engaged in cover-ups for quite a while.

Start asking your priest and bishops questions about the origins of the Trinity doctrine and don't allow them to use the cover-up word, "mystery". 

Here... this will save you some time.

Is this what you believe? Your hierarchy does:

"The Mysteries" has become a noun, an Orthodox catch phrase, for doctrines that cannot be found anywhere in the scriptures and for which the hierarchy can offer no viable explanation. You have been taught to accept that and to not question lest you be considered rebellious, disobedient, and heretical. If your Father God is not afraid of your questions, why is your hierarchy?

2 Timothy 2:15
Be diligent to present yourself approved before God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

It seems we are to present ourselves approved before God and not depend on a priest, bishop, or Ecumenical Council to rightly handle the word of truth for us.

Truth, Tradition, And the Trinity

28 And when all things have been put in subjection to him, then the Son will subject himself to Him who put all things in subjection to him, so that God is all in all.

NOTE: When you decide to "Be diligent to present YOURSELF approved before God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth," then you may ask yourself why you are depending on a hierarchy to present you as approved before God. If you are willing to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling", then also be willing to continue reading.

1) Basic Problems with the doctrine of the Trinity (REV Commentary)

The word “Trinity” is not in the Bible. Although that does not rule out the possible existence of the Trinity, it is supporting evidence that the doctrine is unbiblical.

Trinitarians differ, sometimes greatly, in their definitions of the Trinity. The Eastern Orthodox Church differs from the Western Church on the relation of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son. Also, Trinitarians who hold to the “classic” definition of the Trinity, that Jesus was 100% God and 100% man while on earth, believe differently from Kenotic Trinitarians, who believe that Jesus set aside his godhood while he was a man on earth. Oneness Pentecostals say the classic formula of the Trinity is completely wrong. Yet all these claim that Christ is God and that the Bible supports their position.

A study of the history of the Christian Church shows a definite development in the doctrine of the Trinity over the centuries. For example, the early form of the Apostles’ Creed, believed to date back to shortly after the time of the apostles themselves, does not mention the Trinity or the dual nature of Christ. Furthermore, it only states, “I believe in ‘the holy spirit,’” which could just as easily refer to the gift of holy spirit as it could to a third “Person” in the Trinity. The Nicene Creed, written in AD 325 and modified later, added the material about Jesus Christ being “eternally begotten” and “true God,” and about the Holy Spirit being “Lord.” But it was the Athanasian Creed, most likely composed in the late 400s or early 500s AD, that was the first creed to explicitly state the doctrine of the Trinity, and it includes that if a person does not believe it, he is not saved but will perish everlastingly. Yet saying that a person who does not believe in the Trinity is not saved contradicts the Bible. For example, when Peter addressed the Jews on the Day of Pentecost he did not mention the Trinity or that Jesus was God in the flesh, yet about 3,000 people in the audience were saved (Acts 2:41).

One of the most convincing arguments for Biblical Unitarianism is that God is never described as being composed of “three.” Not “three,” “three-in-one,” “Father, Son and Holy Spirit,” or three Persons making up one God. Many Trinitarians point to Matthew 28:19 which lists the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but it does not call the three of them “God.” Matthew 28:19 is not defining God, it is stating the authority by which disciples will baptize: by the authority of God, of Christ, and by the power of the holy spirit. Simply mentioning three things together does not make them “God.” For example, if Matthew 28:19 read, “Baptize them in the ‘name’ (i.e., authority) of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” that would not make those three people “one Person.”

Also, the two natures of Jesus (him being fully God and fully man) are completely, absent from the scriptures. Jesus is never said to have two natures, two personalities, two minds, two spirits within him. He is always viewed as one person with one mind.

Trinitarians say the “Threeness” of the Trinity is just as vital as his Oneness, but never once does the Bible mention God’s “Threeness,” whereas it mentions His Oneness many times (e.g., Deut. 4:35; 6:4; Isa. 44:6, 8; John 5:44; 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:6).There are no verses that define God as being Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

• There are no verses that define God as three, three in one, or a multiple.
• There are no verses that say that Jesus has two natures or two minds.
• There are no verses that say Jesus is a God-man, or that he is fully God and fully man.
• There are no verses that call Jesus “eternally begotten,” the bible says he was begotten or “born” by Mary

It seems that if the doctrine of the Trinity was genuine and central to Christian belief as almost all Trinitarians claim, and especially if belief in it was necessary for salvation as many Trinitarians teach, it would have been clearly stated in the Bible and in the earliest Christian creeds.

The Trinity is not “hidden,” and it is not a “mystery,” it simply isn’t there.

REV 

WARNING: Seeking truth may ruin your religion. Have faith! There is abundant life outside of Orthodoxy.

Jesus Was Not A Trinitarian

Order On Amazon

There is a growing concern among evangelical scholars that evangelicalism, its doctrine of God and of the Gospel, may not be as securely rooted in Scripture as is often uncritically imagined. The accounts of the historical Jesus and his saving teaching, given us in three corroborating reports in Matthew, Mark and Luke, are often played down in favor of a set of verses from the letters of Paul. That "treadmill" of favorite evangelical proof-texts also relies heavily on John's Gospel. This unbalanced use of Scripture results in a distortion of Jesus' claim to be Messiah, Son of God, in relation to his Father whom he defined as "the only one who is truly God" (John 17:3).

The crux of the problem lies in this fact: Jesus' own very Jewish creed, which he affirmed as the most important truth of all in agreement with a Jewish scribe (Mark 12:28-34), has been allowed no voice in the traditional creeds recited in Church. Worse still, when the unitary monotheistic creed of Jesus and Paul is advanced as the necessary bedrock of good Christian thinking, its exponents are likely to be charged with upsetting the longstanding findings of the church councils. They are even made unwelcome in church settings.

Anthony Buzzard invites scholars and laymen alike to take seriously Jesus' Jewish creed, his recitation of the Shema, "Hear, O Israel," which proclaims God to be one single Lord. Defining God and His Son biblically remains part of the unfinished work of the Reformation. The evidence placed before the reader shows that a major paradigm shift is needed if Christians are to worship their God in spirit and in truth, uncluttered by the philosophical and confusing ideas of God which form part of received church tradition. Buzzard's thesis has enormous significance for the discussion among three great world religions -- Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

Choose You This Day Whom You Will Serve

 Why are you still a Democrat?

Senate Democrats Unanimously Defeat Anti-Infanticide Bill — Would Require Doctors to Save Babies Born Alive During Abortion Procedures

Senate Democrats Unanimously Defeat Anti-Infanticide Bill — Would Require Doctors to Save Babies Born Alive During Abortion Procedures | The Gateway Pundit | by Ben Kew

A Mother Maligned

Carole Stephens, the mother in Rape and the Holy Man, shared this early email exchange with JTO. After an initial letter of support, Carole Stephens says a priest she consulted, Father Kent McCaffery, changed his tune, questioning the veracity of the story and her other children's testimony regarding the event with her daughter. 

"An old email from Fr. Kent back in the day.  If you post it take [daughter's] name out.  Fr. Kent ended up gaslighting me and calling my older siblings liars for bringing it up with me. [Redacted sentence].    Everyone thought I was a trouble maker in the day." 

Dear to Christ Juliana, [*]

[Daughter] was a child when this happened. She was grievously assaulted and then coerced into silence and cover up. Horrible violence has been done to [daughter]. The fact that [daughter] is now an adult is immaterial. You still have a mother's responsibility to report this horrible crime to ROCOR and to law enforcement and to seek legal council. If you choose to fulfil your responsibility you should send a written complaint against Fr. Matthew and his Matushka stating the facts as you know them. Make sure that you keep copies of all correspondence you have had with all parties involved. May God give you grace to do the right thing for the glory of Christ's Kingdom.

Address to send complaint to ROCOR:

His Eminence Metropolitan Hilarion (Kapral) 

Synod of Bishops

75 E. 93 Street

New York, NY 10128

I am praying for Christ to strengthen and comfort you in this trying matter.

Blessings to you!

Carole Stephens did report it to ROCOR.

*NOTE: Juliana is Carole Stephen's baptismal name.

A Summary Of Elizabeth William's Role

Another clarifying summary from an Anonymous commenter on: 

Elizabeth’s Role in Covering Up and Remaining Silent

1. Silence About Personal Abuse:

• Elizabeth allegedly endured mental abuse from Matthew for 27 years but did not report or address it publicly. Her silence allowed him to continue serving as a priest without his personal conduct being scrutinized, which indirectly enabled further harm.

2. Active Cover-Up of Past Allegations:

• Elizabeth is accused of playing a direct role in covering up the 2004 rape allegations involving Carole Stephen’s 15-year-old daughter.

• Allegedly, she attempted to buy the victim’s silence, offering money in exchange for not pursuing the accusations further.

• In addition, Elizabeth is said to have bullied and pressured the victim into staying quiet, potentially using her position as the priest’s wife to intimidate or manipulate the situation.

3. Failure to Protect the Vulnerable:

• Rather than advocating for justice or supporting the victim, Elizabeth’s alleged actions may have contributed to suppressing the truth and shielding Matthew from accountability.

• This enabled him to continue his role as a priest, where he allegedly perpetuated pastoral abuse, harming other parishioners spiritually, emotionally, and psychologically. As well as his own alleged abuse against his own children.

4. Complicity Through Inaction and Action:

• By remaining silent and not reporting to law enforcement about her own abuse and her children’s sexual abuse and actively working to suppress the allegations against Matthew, Elizabeth played a role in maintaining the facade of his moral and spiritual authority.

• Her alleged actions have been interpreted as prioritizing the protection of her family’s reputation over justice and the safety of others.

5. Impact of the Cover-Up:

• The attempts to silence the 2004 victim and the long-standing inaction have had significant consequences, leading to further harm within the parish community.

• These actions have fueled distrust, anger, and division, as the community grapples with the extent of the cover-up and its impact on other victims.

6. Moral Responsibility:

• While Elizabeth may have been a victim of mental abuse herself, her alleged role in covering up Matthew’s actions and silencing a victim has raised serious ethical questions.

• Her actions have not only delayed justice for those harmed but also perpetuated a culture of silence and unaccountability within the Church..

A Summary Of The FMW/ROCOR Matter

Thanks to this JTO Anonymous Commenter for summarizing so adequately the JTO coverage of the Father Matthew Williams/ROCOR matter. This commenter was able to wade through the myriad of emotions and comments to clarify the issues as presented on this blog. The JTO Editor would welcome the commenter to submit future articles to be highlighted here. (Please contact: journeytoorthodoxy@gmail.com)

In summary, the 2004 rape allegations against Carole Stephen’s daughter have become a focal point for understanding how Matthew’s alleged abuse has been allowed to persist and why the current situation has escalated into a broader reckoning for the Church and its handling of abuse cases. And whom suppressed and covered for him.

1.Unresolved Allegations:

• The rape allegations from 2004 appear to have never been fully addressed or transparently resolved. This lack of resolution has left a shadow over Matthew’s character and ministry.

• The failure to hold Matthew accountable at the time created an environment where his behavior was not scrutinized, potentially allowing further abuse to occur.

2. Impact on Credibility:

• These past allegations have resurfaced in light of the current accusations of sexual and pastoral abuse. They add to the perception that there has been a pattern of harmful behavior that went unchecked for years.

• Many are questioning why someone with such serious allegations in their past was allowed to remain in a position of spiritual authority.

3. Erosion of Trust:

• The parish community is grappling with the knowledge that Matthew was allowed to continue as a priest despite such serious allegations, both past and present, which has eroded trust in the Church’s leadership and accountability mechanisms.

• The lack of transparency surrounding the current allegations has fueled anger, gossip, and speculation, contributing to the current climate of division and distrust.

4. Connection to Current Accusations:

• The resurfacing of the 2004 allegations has prompted many to see a pattern of abusive behavior, tying Matthew’s past actions to his alleged abuse of his children and parishioners.

• These connections have intensified calls for accountability, both for Matthew and for those who allowed him to remain in ministry.

5. Church Leadership’s Role:

• Questions are being raised about whether the Church’s leadership failed in its duty to investigate the 2004 allegations thoroughly and take appropriate action.

• This perceived negligence has contributed to the current crisis, as it suggests a broader failure to protect vulnerable individuals and address misconduct.