Readers over the last few years may remember how these “Comments” have recommended and promoted the book written in 2010 by Fr Alvaro Calderón on the true interpretation of the documents of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). Fr Calderón is a priest of the Society of St Pius X from Argentina who has now been teaching thomistic philosophy and theology at the Society’s priestly Seminary in La Reja, Argentina, for several decades. His faithfulness to the teaching of the Catholic Church’s Common Doctor, St Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), is Calderón’s great strength, and it is the strength of his book Prometheus, the Religion of Man, an essay of interpretation of Vatican II.

The book is not easy reading, but it is an incomparable overview of the main errors of Vatican II which are still ravaging the Church 58 years later. Earlier last year the American District of the SSPX published an adaptation of “Prometheus” in English which is not entirely faithful to the original text in Spanish, because around 2012 the Society officially changed direction and no longer wishes to condemn Vatican II as clearly as Calderón condemned it, once and for all, in 2010. The Society needs new bishops to look after its worldwide flock. It wants to have them with Rome’s permission, and not without. So it cannot afford to republish a text like the “Prometheus” of 2010 without taking the sting out of it, because the “Rome” of Pope Bergoglio is intent upon driving Vatican II to the ultimate destruction of the Church.

For a mere taste of that sting, let us summarise here part of Calderón’s 2010 prologue to “Prometheus”.

When Vatican II opened in 1962, the Church’s change of direction was so drastic and so sudden that it took the whole world by surprise, and the Church is still trying to work out what it meant. Pope Benedict XVI wants to find a way of interpreting the Council in harmony with Catholic Tradition, because Catholic “Traditionalists” are claiming that the Council breaks with Tradition. “Prometheus” will then examine how to interpret Vatican II, but let us first anticipate some potential objections to what it will say.

The business of “interpreting” cannot go on for ever. it is common sense that words have a meaning, and mean what they say. Both great Church Councils before Vatican II, Trent and Vatican I, spoke so clearly

and decisively as to settle doctrinal problems and exclude all need for any further interpretation.

1   Then why does the sub-title of “Prometheus” announce that it is an “Essay of interpretation” ?

Because the texts of Vatican II do need interpretation, which shows that they are not clear, unlike texts of Trent or Vatican I. On the contrary they are deliberately confused in order to prevent Catholics from realising that the Council is not just up-dating, but completely changing, their Traditional religion. Pope Benedict wants continuity ?  Alas, the continuity between Vatican II and the past is in fact between the Council and the Church’s enemies of yesterday down the ages, and today. Who are these enemies ? They are the Humanists, going back to the 14th century, always centring religion on man instead of on God.

2   But how can such a complex phenomenon as Vatican II be boiled down to one word, “Humanism”?

Because God is wholly simple, and the closer Catholics get to God, the more simply they can see things.

3   But why does a Catholic book have to resort to Greek mythology for its main title, “Prometheus”?

Because myths can contain profound human truths, and as the mythical Prometheus stole fire from the gods to give it to man, so the Conciliar churchmen stole the true religion from God to twist it for modern man. Prometheus was punished. The mythical Hercules rescued him. Can Aquinas rescue Conciliarists ?

.                                                                                                                                    Kyrie eleison.

“Prometheus” must appear as written first.

Good souls for such truth have a genuine thirst.

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 favour 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 use by 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 documents 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 summarised 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 short time. I attribute this success to the merit of obedience and to the docilityof leaving one’s own idea aside in  favour 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

Professor of Theology, 

Seminary Mary Co-Redemptrix,

La Reja, Argentina,  January 17 2010

It only                        


  1. The first time that Saint Peter was before the Sanhedrin, it was for having cured a sick man paralytic in the Temple, and with flat honesty he told them: “Ye princes of the people, and ancient, hear: If we this day are examined concerning the good deed done to the infirm man, by what means he has been made whole; Be it known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, who God has raised from the dead, even by him this man stands here before you whole. This is the stone which was rejected by you the builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved.” (Act IV, 8-12).

The second time he was not less clear: “We ought to obey God, rather than men. The God of our fathers has raised up Jesus, whom you put to death, hanging him upon a tree. Him has God exalted with his right hand, to be Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel, and remission of sins. And we are witness of these things and the Holy Ghost, who God has given to all that obey him. (Act V, 29-32) Ay! If at least today’s Popes would be able to tell them the same things!

(2) “La lámpara bajo el celemín.” Fr. Alvaro Calderón, Ed. Río Reconquista, Bs. As, 2009, p. 204: “The problems exposed by Vatican II are confused for two reasons: First, because the innovator group that took over in the Council had the prudence of not being explicit in order to avoid any open confrontation with the traditional understanding of most people present; secondly, because the Modernist thinking, which inspires it, necessarily and deliberately is ambiguous, for it does not maintain the instruments that give the driving force to their thinking, with the intention of remaining within the pacifist domain of doctrinal pluralism.”