Here is a translation of the Prologue by Bp. Williamson --CALDERON, PROLOGUE TO “PROMETHEUS”PROLOGUE By Fr. Calderón (January 17, 2010)
In two years’ time there will be the 50th Anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council in 1962, yet the Catholic Church has still not got over the shock of its sudden change of direction at that Council, better known as Vatican II. In fact not just Catholics, but the whole wide world was taken by surprise by Vatican II, and the churchmen themselves are still trying to work out what it meant.
Pope Benedict XVI is calling for a way to be found to interpret Vatican II as being in line with Catholic Tradition, because so-called “Traditionalists” are interpreting Vatican II on the contrary as a break with Tradition. This little book is meant as an answer to the Pope’s call, as its subtitle states – “An essay to interpret Vatican II”. But before I embark on this adventure, let me make a few things clear at the outset.
If I, Fr Calderón, present in this book my interpretation of Vatican II, will there still be needed an interpretation of my interpretation ? That is ridiculous. The process could go on forever. The truth is that words can be used to state without ambiguity what a person or Council, for instance, wants to say. Thus Church Councils like Trent in the 16th century or Vatican I in the 19th century both used precise words in order to clear up, in modern times, Church teaching that was being questioned by protestants and liberals respectively, and both Councils succeeded absolutely in the purpose of excluding the need for any further interpretation of Church doctrine on the points covered. In fact no serious Catholic theologian may even try to reinterpret these Councils’ definitions, and the true Church’s language is habitually clear in this way. Only modern subjectivists have lost their grip on words saying what they mean, and meaning what they say. “Verba significant ut sonant,” said the Latins. Words mean what they say. That is common sense.
But then why has the sub-title of this book, mentioned above, stated that it is an “essay of interpretation”?
Precisely because the texts of Vatican II are not written in the clear language of the true Catholic Church. Rather, they are written in a style which suggests that they are written for initiates to interpret them with the help of a secret password. This password I think I have found. That is what this book will present. That is why I am also entering into this fantasy world of “interpretation”, in order to bring out the real meaning of the deliberately confused texts of Vatican II. As I wish to show, the churchmen of Vatican II had something to hide – they meant to change the Catholic religion. Hence their deliberate confusion, to disguise what they were up to.
However, if Benedict XVI calls for an interpretation that harmonizes Vatican II with Catholic Tradition, in one sense he is right, namely that it was centuries of humanism from inside the Church which finally led to its triumph at Vatican II. Such an earthquake as Vatican II never happens overnight. The centering of the Catholic religion on man instead of on God began in fact with the Renaissance some 600 years ago. In this respect my book will fulfill the Pope’s request for an interpretation of Vatican II that shows it is in continuity with the preceding centuries, but that is, by their man-centredness, not by their godliness ! So it is hardly the continuity that Benedict was hoping for, on the contrary. Nevertheless, “humanism”, or the turn to man, is the key to my own interpretation of Vatican II. From its beginning in the 14th century humanism was opposed to Christianity, turning to man maybe, but away from God. However, since this book is concerned with doctrine and not with history, then it gives only enough historical details to illustrate the thesis that Vatican II was a major attempt to reconcile humanism with Catholicism.
Now a further objection might be that such a complicated phenomenon as Vatican II, with its huge variety of factors in play and consequences following, cannot possibly be reduced to one single word such as “Humanism” without oversimplifying the reality of what took place at the Council. And as a general rule that principle is true, namely that huge events cannot be boiled down to just one word. However, the one True God is absolutely simple, because for Him to have any separate parts, to put these parts together into one Being would have required somebody or something prior to God – impossible. So the more God is involved in anything, the simpler it is liable to become, and the more things are soon in the light of true theological principles, the simpler they are seen to be. Thus seen in the light of true theological principles, even errors are capable of being simply analyzed.
So my analysis of Vatican II as an attempt to mix oil and water, or to reconcile man-centredness with God-centredness, may not be wrong just because it is simple. Nor is my analysis of Vatican II just mine. I have drawn it essentially from the philosophy and theology of St Thomas Aquinas, which were for Pius X in his great Encyclical, “Pascendi”, the prime remedy to that scourge of modernism which has flayed the Universal Church ever since Vatican II. Woe to the Council Fathers who scorned Thomas Aquinas !
So much for the sub-title of this book, “The religion of Man”, but why resort to Greek mythology for its main title, “Prometheus” ? Because like all classic mythology, the myth of Prometheus contains much truth bearing on man and life and human nature, and he in particular embodies the spirit of Humanism. For he was of divine nature and a worshipper of Zeus, the chief god, but Prometheus so came to favor mankind that finally he stole fire from the gods, to whom it belonged by right, in order to give it to men. Likewise the Council Fathers of Vatican II stole from Heaven the Catholic religion in order to hand it over to men, which meant that it ceased to be the true religion of God and became a poor imitation according to the wishes of men. And just as the mythical Prometheus was severely punished by Zeus with being chained to a rock where an eagle constantly tore out his entrails, so the Council Fathers were severely punished by God with their true Church being torn to pieces, a process still going on in 2010. In the Greek myth, Prometheus was finally rescued by the mighty Hercules. Will there be a Hercules to rescue the Church from Vatican II ? St Thomas Aquinas ?
This book is difficult to read, but it should be the last of four essays of mine on Vatican II. The first of the four was entitled “The Lamp under the Bushel” (Mt. V, 14). It examined whether Vatican II texts come under the Magisterium or teaching authority of the true Church. The second essay was entitled “The Paschal Mystery”. It began the endless task of disentangling the subtle errors of the modernists which entangle the mystery of the Redemption, which is at the heart of the Catholic sacrifice of the Mass. The third essay was entitled “The Kingdom of God”, another minefield of modernist errors, where, as it seems to me, even good theologians so defend the truth with liberal arguments that in the end they can no longer properly refute terrible docuмents of Vatican II like Gaudium et Spes and Dignitatis Humanae. And the fourth essay is this same book entitled “Prometheus, the Religion of Man”. It follows on the three previous essays where ideas summarized in “Prometheus” are developed at greater length. Time must tell whether I may continue to write on the Council, or not. I do hope that I do not have to dwell on the endless entanglements fabricated by the enemies of God to undermine and destroy His true Church.
If “Prometheus” makes difficult reading, that is precisely because the Council Fathers were obliged to cover their tracks to get their Revolution accepted by the mass of Catholics. They would certainly have rejected that Revolution had they seen clearly what was going on. To refute in the necessary detail all of the Council’s errors would have required a far longer book. To present a synthetic overview of those errors has required that this short book jump over a lot of detail, but that has also meant that many a paragraph is so packed with content that many a reader may feel overwhelmed. However, I have written “Prometheus” as I have written it, and I am not sorry, because it overviews the Council as I wanted to overview it.
So “Prometheus” divides into four parts: Part one, the being or nature of the Council, because anything must first be in order to act, and then three parts on the Council’s action. Parts two, three and four present the Council’s New-man, New-church and New-religion respectively, which are like a new building’s bricks, walls and edifice respectively.
It just remains for me to express my thanks to Bishop Richard Williamson, who not only encouraged me and almost compelled me to undertake this task – given that this essay should go ahead as being the last of my program – but he also provided me with the key idea, in order to shape it in the manner that it came out to be shaped. For instance to him belongs in essence the schema which you find being built up at the conclusion of each Chapter. I can say that I did not want to face up to the task of writing this essay, because I calculated that it would mean a lot of work for little profit, but as soon as I fixed on the Humanism of the Council with its turn to man being the central principle, then each question dropped into place without effort. Never did I think that such a complicated project could be resolved in such a short time. I attribute this success to the merit of obedience and to the docility of leaving one’s own idea aside in favor of my neighbor’s idea. I also believe that the ease of writing was a consequence of telling the truth.
Enough of preliminaries. Let us get going !
Father Alvaro Martin Calderón
Topic: Eleison Comments - Prometheus (no. 852) (Read 18891 times)