Defending Catholic Tradition Without Compromise, Part 2: An Interview with Father Paul Sretenovic

(A project of Catholic Family News and Christ or Chaos)

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Author's Note: Catholic Family News and Christ or Chaos published interviews a few weeks ago with Father Lawrence Smith, Father Stephen Zigrang, and Father Patrick Perez. This is a much more detailed interview with another traditional priest, Father Paul Sretenovic (pronounced Stre-ten-o-vich), who recently abandoned the Novus Ordo, moved out of the Archdiocese of Newark, and now offers the Traditional Latin Mass at Father Perez’s Our Lady Help of Christians Church in Garden Grove, California. Father Sretenovic is the fourth priest interviewed who has “embraced Catholic Tradition without compromise”. I thank Mr. John Vennari, the editor of Catholic Family News, for his collaboration with me on this project. My questions are in bold print.

1. How did you, having been born in 1974, develop an interest in the Traditional Latin Mass?

When I was young, I went to Mass when my mother would take me. I eventually became an altar boy, and my brother after me. Most of the time, I was bored, just as I was in CCD, once a week. I grew up without a love for the Catholic Faith, in spite of my mother’s best intentions to teach me about God. My father is Serbian Orthodox and when I went to his services, my mind was usually in another world until my little brother tried to make me laugh. He succeeded quite frequently. I lived basically for myself, in spite of my gentle disposition, for the first twenty years of my life.

Then, without getting into major details, I woke up and began not only going to Mass on Sundays, but also on weekdays before work. After working with the developmentally disabled for about two years, I discerned a vocation to the priesthood and entered the college seminary in January of 1996. When I was there, I became friends with a few seminarians who were more traditional minded, a few of whom are now priests, and one of whom has already contacted me to offer his congratulations. At this point, I knew next to nothing, and I had no problems with the Novus Ordo. In fact, I was all for it, but I stayed close to these men because I found myself beginning to think like them. They made sense when they spoke. I also enjoyed very much their company.

Over the years while I was moving closer to the priesthood, the traditional movement was off in the horizon and I would occasionally go to a Traditional Latin Mass in New York City, at St. Agnes. When I got to the major seminary, the seminarian next door to me was notoriously traditional, not to mention boisterous, and he considered me like a little brother, which I did not mind at all. I respected him very much and he would later serve as my Master of Ceremonies at my first Mass. At one point, I think in my second year, he gave to me a Missale Romanum from 1956 which I was happy to receive but I wound up keeping stored in the bottom shelf of my desk for the remainder of my years at the seminary. I felt that it could only cause me confusion at that point to take a chance with something over my head. I still knew next to nothing, so not much had changed in three years, which was one of my greatest struggles in seminary formation.

It wasn’t until a year after my ordination to the priesthood that a friend of mine who had grown up serving the Latin Mass found my Missale in the trunk of my car and he asked me if I would be interested in learning how to offer the Old Mass. At this point, I was more open to an immersion, so I agreed.

I began to suspect that there were hidden forces at work when every time we tried to work on the Mass, I would either get a phone call or someone would be in the main office requesting my presence. I was in a particularly slow parish in terms of volume, so interruptions like this almost never happened any other time. I said to myself, “Either God or the devil doesn’t want me doing this,” because such “disturbances” happened on more than one occasion. Already at this point, I really wasn’t happy, in spite of the presence of good people at the parish and priests whom I got along with very well. I sensed pretty strongly that something was missing so I decided to continue to press forward with my studies of the Old Rite.

At about the same time, I had received some literature from The Fatima Crusader, and before I knew it, I had read The Devil’s Final Battle, which led to an avalanche of reading, including books such as Iota Unum, The Great Façade, In the Murky Waters of Vatican II (a book I had actually possessed for a few years but never got around to reading), and Fatima in Twilight. I was also getting publications sent to my parents’ house, like The Remnant and The Latin Mass magazine. About a month before making my choice to leave the Archdiocese, I ordered a subscription to Catholic Family News. A good analogy would be to say that as I was learning the Latin Mass, I was theologically moving from Ignatius Press to TAN to Angelus Press. I had more life in me and it was influencing the care I was taking with the New Mass, while also increasing my unease with what I was doing at that Mass, especially on Sundays. I believe there were also signal graces along the way to confirm my suspicions and serve as the foundation for that day on which I would finally make the break.

2. When did you offer your first Traditional Latin Mass? What were your thoughts and emotions upon offering it?

I offered my first Traditional Latin Mass on January 8, 2004, on my 30th birthday, in New York State. Incidentally, on September 8, 2003, the very day that Father Lawrence C. Smith left his diocese, the Diocese of Davenport, Iowa, for the sake of Tradition, I recorded a talk in anticipation of a conference I was to deliver one month later on the Message of Fatima, in response to my reading The Devil’s Final Battle. Another non-coincidence that just so happens to have fallen on Our Lady’s Birthday. But when I actually did finally offer the Latin Mass, I was nervous and I did make a couple of “minor mistakes.” Now I say “minor” tongue-in-cheek because, in reality, there are no “minor” mistakes in the Mass of Tradition. Every word, action, and gesture mean something. But the Mass on January 8 of last year overall went fine, albeit a little forced.

I was beginning to live two lives and sooner or later, something was going to give. The duplicity I was struggling with made the Mass more difficult because it really does take your full attention, and you definitely should not have anything in the back of your mind to distract you. Of course, I would say the same thing of the New Mass, but that Mass doesn’t need any help to create distractions. They are built in. To be quite honest, with regard to my first Mass in New York, I was just happy to have one under my belt. It was a start and I figured that it would get better and my priesthood would benefit from it. The priest whose church I used was very hospitable and kind, shall we say, in his assessment, although I could see his eyebrows rising a couple of times out of the corner of my eye during the Mass.

3. Could you describe the process by which you came to understand that there was a crisis of Faith within the Church, of which the abandonment of the Traditional Latin Mass is an integral part?

By 2003, I knew, at least in theory, that the Old Mass was better than the New and coming to understand the process through which this came about, both at the Second Vatican Council, as well as in the decades leading up to it in relation to the Message of Our Lady of Fatima, through reading the books I mentioned in response to your first question, led me to consider that this was not just about the Mass. The Old Mass and the New Liturgy reflect two completely different thought processes and, yes, religions. Yet, Truth and error cannot be wed. Our Lord Jesus Christ accepts those who will receive Him … those who would have Him be their King. He did not force people to follow Him and He did not try to make deals. For me, the process really consisted in moving from neo-Catholic to Traditional category to no retreat, no surrender … and no compromise. I was getting hands on with the Mass plus good theology plus the time to let it sink in. I also started seeing things I had not seen before, and before I knew it, the last ten years of my life began to be reinterpreted.

4. What were your most difficult crosses when offering the Novus Ordo Missae?

The crosses in offering the Novus Ordo Missae grew in proportion to my prayerful study of the facts. I always loathed facing the people because it was distracting and simply a confused orientation. Facing the people made me think of the Mass as commemoration rather than a Sacrifice, without even having to give it any thought. The use of lay “extraordinary ministers” of Holy Communion also bothered me more and more as time passed because it is disrespectful of the Real Presence while serving to undermine the priesthood. Sacred Charism was poured on my hands for a reason, not just to offer sacrifice, but also to handle the Sacred Species as well as the sacred vessels. The fact that my first pastor allowed the use of wine glasses for the Precious Blood was indicative of the widespread confusion and loss of faith. In January of 2004, we received a new pastor who cleaned things up liturgically, but even then, in implementing the 2003 General Instruction to the Roman Missal (G.I.R.M.) we learned more about germs than the Catholic Faith.

I mean this literally. During my last few months in the Archdiocese of Newark, because of the shortage of flu shots, there was a good deal of emphasis for lay-extraordinary ministers to frequently wash their hands before and after handling the sacred vessels, let alone the Sacred Host. So, germs were a hot topic of discussion. Of course, the best way to deal with such a situation, and really the only way to do so, in the final analysis, is to eliminate the use of lay-extraordinary ministers altogether. This is not only to stop the spread of germs, but also, and more importantly, to stop the spread of sacrilege towards the Most Blessed Sacrament which results from such an undermining of the Catholic distinction between the clergy and laity.

I also did not like giving Communion in the hand, which goes without saying, and I got to a point where I almost announced that if one wanted to receive Communion in the hand, don’t approach the altar in my line. In addition to all of this, as I mentioned in my letter to the Archbishop, some of the prayers in the “Sacramentary” had me shaking my head, sometimes in actual fact, as I was saying them. A few times, I actually had to change a word to make it sound Catholic. Oh, and I would be remiss not to mention that the “for you and for all” controversy weighed on my mind at every Mass, to the point in which I was interiorly saying “many,” versus “all,” but that simply did not work because I was still saying “all.” I received clarification on this issue and other issues I have mentioned most especially in Klaus Gamber’s book, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy. All it took was for me to actually look into the issues to get my answers and make applications.

5. You have stated publicly The Devil’s Final Battle, compiled and edited by Father Paul Kramer, helped you to see the situation in the Church more clearly than you had before. Please elaborate on this.

The book was a real eye-opener for me. My first reaction was, “So this is why I was so bored with much of what was required reading in the seminary.” It is an unwritten rule that works either inundated or even tainted with modernism are a strain on the mind to read and ambiguous. With The Devil’s Final Battle, I never had this problem and I devoured it.

On the other hand, when I would, for instance, try to read the documents of Vatican II in my room at the seminary, a hidden camera would have been in order. I would read for five minutes, nap for fifteen, try again for about ten, and then pull my sweater over my head and I could be out for an hour. It was draining. The Faith is not supposed to be draining. It is supposed to fill us with a love for God and His Church, and give us zeal for the Gospel. For some reason, it was as if the right to think was stripped away because Vatican II was an Ecumenical Council and therefore, there was no questioning it. It had to be good. It had to be from God.
Well, to simply state the greatest contribution of The Devil’s Final Battle in my coming to Tradition, among the many ways in which it assisted me, the book showed me point by point how inaccurate such an assumption was, and how, in fact, the opposite is true. No Catholic is bound to accept the progressivist novelties of Vatican II. Archbishop Lefebvre’s critique of the Declaration on Religious Liberty confirmed my growing suspicions.

6. Is The Devil’s Final Battle one of the reasons you decided to attend Father Nicholas Gruner’s Fatima Conference in Glendale, California, in September of 2004?

To answer this, I will elaborate briefly on your previous question. The Devil’s Final Battle laid the situation in the Church over the last 40 plus years so clearly that the big picture was impossible to miss. In describing the plans for Freemasonry for the Church, as well as the role of modernist theologians at Vatican II, all centering around the ominous prediction of Our Lady to Sister Lucy concerning the year 1960, I knew that not only had things gone wrong, but I myself had been contributing to the “diabolical disorientation,” a term used by Sister Lucy to describe the direction of the souls in the hierarchy during the last half-century. What exactly to do about it was unclear, and, as a result, I decided to use the $500 continuing education money promised to priests of the Archdiocese of Newark once a year to attend the Fatima Conference in Glendale, California. I immediately met Father Gruner, who was most gracious and even waived the $100 fee and the cost of the dinner to boot. His people on staff were tremendous, the speakers were both prepared and very good, including yourself, John Vennari, and one Father Patrick J. Perez.

7. Describe the events that took place at that conference.

Well, I had attended the Conference with no plans of ultimately leaving the Archdiocese. I left the Conference with the same disposition. In between, however, as you noted in The Remnant article from January 31, seeds were being planted. I was just honored to be in the presence of some of these people. Then I had the chance to sit with John Vennari for almost half-an- hour over breakfast. He did sympathize with the difficulty of my situation and did not subsequently beat me over the head. God was reserving that honor for the Droleskeys a little over two months later. The seed needed time to plant itself first.

With regard to dinner that evening with Mrs. Perez, and her son, Father Patrick Perez, I had a nice dinner chat with them, but nothing major. Father did mention to me that he had challenged a priest he knows in the Novus Ordo, asking him how he could continue to offer a Mass that, as a result of Modernism, did bodily harm to the Body of Christ. At this point, I think I understood what Father Perez was getting at.

8. What precipitated your meeting with this writer and his wife on December 3, 2004? What points struck you as we met? What thoughts were crossing your mind after that meeting?

One evening, it was one of the last days of November, when I was on the computer checking my email, it occurred to me to go back to my office and take a few minutes to browse the articles in the Latin Mass magazine. In the issue that I pulled out, I saw an advertisement for Christ the King College and I went back to my computer to see what was involved to enroll in a few courses. I decided to email you to inquire further and then, having seen you in a traditional chapel not too far from my parish, I decided to ask you about getting together one day after Mass. You agreed and after the First Friday Mass in December, we went with your wife and daughter to the North Star Diner in Wayne, New Jersey, where I mentioned to you, among other things, my struggles giving Communion in the hand. You replied by giving me the example of Father Stephen Zigrang, who stopped the practice in his parish and has since, of course, left his diocese. Your wife pointed out that she knew a number of priests who agreed in principle with “Tradition without compromise,” but had not actually followed through.

She said that they all seemed very unhappy and it was at this point that I realized that I was heading in the same direction, and, in fact, was already there. I inquired about my options, mentioning that I was fine with the Society of St. Pius X all in all and was considering that path. After mentioning your admiration for Bishop Fellay, you informed me about the possibility of joining Fathers Perez and Smith in Garden Grove, California. You gave to me their phone numbers online later, and in the meantime, you passed along the point that if I were to meet personally with the Archbishop, he might suggest joining Father John Perricone at Saint Anthony of Padua Chapel in West Orange, New Jersey, where Father Paul Wickens was before he died. Then, practically at the same time, we said, in so many words, “Great, and when the Archbishop moves, then what?” Not only that, but given that the Mass was not the only issue for me, I had a sense that this simply was not the answer. A stronger statement needed to be made - publicly resisting the new post-Conciliar orientation - and with the grace of God I could do it! (It is part of the “deal” with “Indult” masses through the diocese that the priest may not publicly oppose the New Mass or Vatican II). I needed to go where I could receive a good formation, “filling the gaps,” as you put it in The Remnant article, from great priests, while also serving as a priest and making enough money per month to pay outstanding bills, including my student loan from the Archdiocese of Newark. The Society of Saint Pius X may have required me to go for at least two years of seminary formation to unlearn what I had acquired and replace it with the ways of old, and I would have been fine with that, but my situation required something else and I did not know that I was even called by God to enter the SSPX.

When we parted, the one thing that stuck out in my mind on the way home, other than your wife’s counsels, was the fact that we simultaneously saw eye-to- eye on the issue of the West Orange possibility. Maybe it would never have come up, but it brought out the reality of the ecclesial situation concerning the will of this or that bishop, depending upon how “friendly to Tradition” they were. Just the sound of that is unbelievable, as if bishops are free not to be friendly to the patrimony of the Church. I said to myself, “If I am going to do this, it is all or none.” They have to know that we are not allowed to break with the past that is our birthright as Catholics.

9. You spoke to Fathers Perez and Smith after our meeting. Please tell the readers of Catholic Family News your impressions after speaking to these priests.

Actually, I wrote to Father Perez a few times and his point was, “The writing is on the wall.” His conviction was impressive and having already met him in September, this only served to reinforce my impression that this was a true priest of Jesus Christ, a pastor that I needed if I was ever to become the priest I long to be. Father Smith called me and his clear-sighted conviction had a great effect on me. His exhortation to give the people their birthright as Catholics and to do that which would lead me to holiness of life, coupled with my belief in Supplied Jurisdiction for Traditional priests, as explained by Bishop Tissier of the SSPX, gave me the confidence to do what I had to do and get to California, which is, of course, where I am today. Fathers Perez and Smith also helped me to realize that as important as the SSPX is to the Traditional counter-revolution, even central, the movement itself need not be equated with the Society. In fact, if more priests will do what I and other priests such as Father Perez, Father Smith, Father Zigrang, and numerous others have done, then the objection of a “parallel Church” over and against Rome loses force. I think in that sense, although I have not joined the Society, I may actually be helping it. Now they can say to Rome, “Hey, it’s not just us. There are other priests and laity who do not believe that compromise or conditions on Tradition are options.”

10. Although you decided to leave the Novus Ordo structure within a few weeks of our meeting, you have been very frank about the indecision that led up to your ultimate decision. Could you explain some of the forces that were at work as you went back and forth in your decision-making process?

Well, December 19 found me driving out to Latrobe, Pennsylvania, to pick up a friend of mine from Saint Vincent’s Benedictine monastery and during the course of my six-hour drive, I prayed my Rosary and found myself pretty focused in my prayers. Towards the end of my drive, I listened to Atila Sinke Guimarães’ tape, Revolution and Counter-Revolution, and at the tape’s end, I wondered to myself how I could be a part of the Catholic Counter-Revolution while remaining within the structure of my diocese which is a product of the Revolution. I did not discern within myself the courage to go against the grain from within the grain, if you know what I mean. God gives to us the grace in every circumstance to resist temptation and fight the good fight, but the question I was asking myself was, “Do I have a choice, before God?” Did I have to stay put in order to fulfill God’s Will for me? Could I actually do the unthinkable and leave the Archdiocese? It was one thing to have considered it. It is quite another thing to do it.

When I arrived in Latrobe, I stayed overnight and before going to bed, I prayed before an image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, begging Her intercession for this poor sinner. After my prayer, I sat down and began paging through G.I.R.M. Warfare and liked what I was reading. Then, I turned to the front of the book and saw that you had signed the book and written a brief message stating your sincere desire that I “extricate myself from the ambiance of the Novus Ordo.” I began to laugh, stood up, and said, “What am I so afraid of? I am never offering the New Mass again.” I figured that this conviction would be challenged, and it was, as, before actually making the move, I did offer four or five more Masses at my parish. In spite of this lapse, I chalked it up to human weakness. I needed to pray more. I dealt with quite a bit of indecision and it got to the point in which after sending emails to Father Perez and yourself, saying that I was coming, I became increasingly concerned that I was going to be putting my foot in my mouth by not following through. I had attended conferences, read books, and prayed, but I found myself behaving much like the multitudes who “marveled at Jesus’ words,” and promptly did nothing about it. I did not want to continue to be like them, and I think this consideration really helped me to finally pack up and go.

Incidentally, one of the “conferences” that pushed me over the edge was on one afternoon of reflection with Opus Dei. The priest in question is a good man who gave me some excellent spiritual direction. However, from previous conferences, I knew that he, as well as Opus Dei in general, went right along with the new post-Conciliar orientation, such as ecumenism. Well, on this day, I believe it was in November, he said something to the effect of, “We are not looking to return to Christendom.” As I wrote in my letter to the Archbishop, “That said it all.” I did not think that statement would ever actually benefit me, but it did sooner than I could have imagined at the time. It is one of the many indications that the Novus Ordo structure has abandoned the traditional Papal teaching on the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ.

Concluded Next Month


Published also in the April, 2005 Catholic Family News