But you're ready to accuse Bishop de Lauriers of lying, eh?

No, YOU are completely missing the point.  It doesn't really matter.  So what if the Archbishop used the 1965 New Mass or the 1969.  Had he offered the 1969 New Mass through 1974, that would not change my opinion of him.  Confusion reigned in those days.  +Lefebvre signed all the docuмents of Vatican II.  But he later regretted it and changed his mind.  So what if he originally signed him?

This defensiveness comes from people who look at +Lefebvre as if he were some Rule of Faith or Oracle from Heaven ... as a substitute for the Church's Magisterium.  He too was struggling with this Crisis ... just like EVERYONE ELSE and was not somehow floating or levatating above it in super-human fashion

Yes, Msgr. des Lauriers is a liar, and you are now embarking upon deception to rehabilitate him, by pretending Msgr. Lefebvre celebrated the Novus Ordo (even as you elsewhere contradict yourself by gratuitously suggesting Lefebvre was merely celebrating the 1965 missal).

Your motive is therefore exposed.

Shame on you.

I suspect you are a sedeprivationist?

Ironic, therefore, that you must inadvertantly back the slop of Mssrs Siscoe/Salza to preserve Msgr. des Lauriers.

The villains of Vatican II practically offered "all the kingdoms of the world" to +Lefebvre before the 1988 consecrations if he would say "just one Novus Ordo Mass". Kind of like satan wanted just one token adoration from Our Lord.

Once you compromise like that, you're useless. You're neutralized. satan and all his followers understand this implicitly.

If +ABL had said the Novus Ordo (rather than the 1965, which is NOT the Novus Ordo Missae) then why all the trouble to stain his perfect record and compromise him forever by getting him to say "just one Novus Ordo Mass"?

I don't know, Matthew.  1988 was 1988.  Why would offering a 1969 NOM in 1969/70 "stain" Archbishop's record?  I know of many Trad priests (among the independents) who offered the NOM for a few years before coming to their senses, and I don't consider them "stained".  St. Thomas Aquinas got it wrong on the Immaculate Conception (a number of lesser points), but no one considers him "stained" as a result.  Some Church Fathers, saints, held positions that were later condemned as heretical.

Archbishop Lefebvre signed all of the V2 docuмents.  Archbishop Lefebvre faltered in the early 1980s as he was asking to make the "experiment of Tradition" and making various practical compromises, where The Nine were thrown under the bus to the altar of Wojtyla.  Archbishop Lefebvre got it wrong about EENS dogma.  He wasn't perfect.  He wasn't infallible.  He was human, and not some Divine Oracle.  Despite all this, I believe that he will be canonized some day, and that he should be.  But I don't hold him up to some humanly-unattainable standard of absolute perfection, nor do I think that something he may have done in 1969 or 1970 would in any way detract from that.  Like everyone else, he was torn between (the eminently Catholic instinct of) loyalty to the Holy See and the perception that the new orientation was harmful.  People are confused even now, with the benefit of 60 years of hindsight, much less in 1969 or 1970, in the thick of it.  For all I know, I would have been all on board offering Clown Masses in 1969 had I been a priest at that time, except that I naturally detest clowns.  We are what we are only by the grace of God.

Very honest reply Ladislaus.  This is so true and folks should cut the bravado about their loyalty.  We need God not the other way around.

More than a few sedevacantists want us to stop depending on +ABL for our authority, and instead we are asked to embrace the sedevacantist stance. The sedevacantists will go to great lengths, at times, to get us away from +ABL, including insisting that +ABL was wrong on a number of matters. We do not see +ABL as God. We see him as having a reasonable explanation for the Crisis. That the sedevacantists are so diligent in trying to take traditional Catholics away from +ABL shows their animosity towards anything that isn't sedevacantist. Well, we aren't going to go along with it. Sorry. 

Meg I wouldn't be hard on sede's. It's becoming clear the Church will ultimately rule this way once Catholics are in the positions to make the ruling.

I was posting in defense mode. I was defending the right to not be a sedevacantist. And defending the right to follow +ABL. If sedes would just let us be, I wouldn't have to say anything. 

The villains of Vatican II practically offered "all the kingdoms of the world" to +Lefebvre before the 1988 consecrations if he would say "just one Novus Ordo Mass". Kind of like satan wanted just one token adoration from Our Lord.

Once you compromise like that, you're useless. You're neutralized. satan and all his followers understand this implicitly.

If +ABL had said the Novus Ordo (rather than the 1965, which is NOT the Novus Ordo Missae) then why all the trouble to stain his perfect record and compromise him forever by getting him to say "just one Novus Ordo Mass"?

Well said, Matthew.

It beggars belief that some senior members of this forum consider there is no difference between saying a NOM or adopting some of the earlier transitional changes; "who cares", "it doesn't even matter": for them there is apparently little difference between the two. Not that even that was the case for Archbishop Lefebvre.

What is truth? ""Who cares". "It doesn't even matter". So long as you believe my lies. So long as you understand my truth that the Archbishop made so many mistakes and got so many things wrong. He didn't have the benefit of having me as his advisor.

I asked Bishop Williamson about this question in 2016 and received this reply:

The most charitable explanation of the wayward Fr Guerard des Lauriers' words is to say that he is referring to the 'John XXIII Mass', i.e. the liturgy reformed under Pius XII and promulgated by John XXIII in 1962, which was, by no means yet, Pope Paul VI's New Mass of 1969. The then Fr Clarence Kelly played the same verbal trick with 'Reformed Mass' in the United States in 1983 to get traditional US Catholics to abandon the Archbishop and follow him. 
 
The Archbishop never said the 1969 Mass. In 1976 Fr Dhanis came from Rome to see the Archbishop on the eve of the Archbishop's ordaining his first major class of priestly ordinands of Econe (I was one of them). 'If only you celebrate just once the Mass in this Missal (and he held out a Novus Ordo Missal that he had brought with him for the purpose) then everything will be smoothed out with Rome' 
 
But why would Fr Dhanis have needed to do any such thing if it had been known that the Archbishop had already celebrated the New Mass ?  

Here is some of the text from the link provided by De Lugo. Bishop Tissier ought to know, since he joined the Archbishop at Fribourg in October of 1969:

As recounted in Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais’s authoritative Marcel Lefebvre: The Biography (Angelus Press 2004), “Since Archbishop Lefebvre was opposed to the New Mass, he would not have it in the seminary” (p. 416). When the first crop of seminarians who would form the foundation of the Society arrived in Fribourg, Switzerland in 1969, it was decided quickly that the Old Mass, that is the traditional Latin Mass (TLM), would be celebrated by the nascent priestly fraternity rather than the New Mass of Pope Paul VI. After the New Mass was introduced into the Diocese of Fribourg on the eve of Advent 1969, the Archbishop continued to celebrate the TLM, though some of the seminarians assisted at the New Mass in Latin at a nearby Bernardine monastery on Sundays when the Archbishop was called away on other matters.

The Archbishop’s decision to allow his seminarians to assist at the Novus Ordo Missae was nothing more than an expression of his prudence. Not wanting to cause scandal to the faithful by appearing to disobey the local bishop, Archbishop Lefebvre took a cautious approach at first, informing an inquiring priest that the Roman Canon should be retained while the words of consecration are said in a low voice. As time went on, the Archbishop’s concerns over the New Mass grew as he observed its disastrous fruits, consulted with episcopal colleagues, and reflected more on its doctrinal distortions.
While much could be written on the liturgical praxis of the SSPX and other traditionalist Catholics during the years following the New Mass’s introduction, many priests simply relied upon the missals, breviaries, and other liturgical texts that were available to them. In 1965, for instance, several alterations were made to the 1962 Missale Romanum, such as the abbreviation of Psalm 42 during the so-called “Prayers at the Foot of the Altar”; the use of the vernacular for the epistle and gospel readings; and the suppression of the Last Gospel. The Archbishop accepted these slight modifications to the traditional Mass at first before finally settling on the 1962 books promulgated by Pope John XXIII as the SSPX’s normative liturgy in 1974.
False Accusations
At no point did the Archbishop himself ever say the New Mass. It appears that the calumny saying that he did has its origins in an unsubstantiated letter written by Fr. Guérard des Lauriers, OP, on April 12, 1979. Fr. des Lauriers was a French theologian and professor who had formerly taught at the SSPX’s seminary in Écône, Switzerland until his embrace of sedevacantism in 1977. Not only did the Archbishop deny this charge, but it was refuted in detail by Jean Madiran in the May 1980 issue of the journal he founded, Itinéraires. Madiran called Lauriers out for his outrageous language against the Archbishop, namely, accusing him of being a traitor and another Pontius Pilate. However, he noted the claim that the Archbishop celebrated the New Mass from April, 1969, to December, 1971, as being the worst accusation of all. Madiran pointed out to Fr. Lauriers that the New Mass was not even permitted before November 1969, and that it was absurd to think that the Archbishop was such an enthusiast for the New Mass that he would have started celebrating it before everyone else.
In the end, when the Archbishop wrote to Fr. Lauriers to deny the charge, the latter wrote back to say that he was happy this was the case, but that the Archbishop had made certain gestures while celebrating the traditional Mass that made him think he was celebrating the New Mass. It was clear at this point that Fr. Lauriers’s original letter was a case of bad polemics.

Read that last paragraph again:

In the end, when the Archbishop wrote to Fr. Lauriers to deny the charge, the latter wrote back to say that he was happy this was the case, but that the Archbishop had made certain gestures while celebrating the traditional Mass that made him think he was celebrating the New Mass.



 

This was already proven false, and Fr. Des laurier recanted.

Regardless, let’s just assume that it is true for a second. Salza is part of the conciliar church, how does this (in his erroneous view) paint +ABL in a negative light? If Salza supports the New mass should he then support +ABL?

Salza is a Freemason and his opinion should be valued the same as your mailman’s. What’s his goal with criticizing the SSPX? Salza calls the SSPX and +ABL schismatic but look at the fruits of the NO vs the fruits of the SSPX.  The fssp which he supports is about to be suppressed so where else will he go for the sacraments?

Trads should ignore the mudslinging and focus on the Faith, which we have and they (the NO) do not. Men like Salza profit off of the crisis by sensationalizing articles and videos and acting as if they are the fountain of truth.

The problem is, CIA, that not everyone shares your opinion of Mr Salza.
Many see him to be a convert Freemason and a learned and trustworthy authority on the Pope and the Faith.
His influence may be quite considerable.
So when he promotes false information about such an important person as Archbishop Lefebvre, and such an important issue as the New Mass, we should not "ignore" him, but vigorously defend the truth, and the honour of our beloved Archbishop. This is certainly focusing on the defence of the Faith.

More than a few sedevacantists want us to stop depending on +ABL for our authority ...

This is the problem here.  +Lefebvre is not an "authority".  In the Catholic Church, that would be the Pope.  You're constantly looking for substitute authority where you've gone ahead and gutted real Catholic authority and the Magisterium.  Bishop Williamson has on numerous occasions conceded this, that +Lefebvre was an artificial glue trying to hold the SSPX together, but in the absence of a "Catholic" pope (SVs would say, of a pope in general), it's an artificial construct.  He predicted long beforehad that the SSPX would grow unstable after the Archbishop died.

This is why there's this stup tug-o-war being waged over +Lefebvre.  "We're the true sons of +Lefebvre."  "No, WE are." ... as each side quotes +Lefebvre from different times, where at one time he was more conciliatory toward the Vatican, and at others more cynical, skeptical, and antagonistic.

What does it matter, especially now that the Archbishop has not bee with us for over 30 years now?