Except that the 1965 Missal was in use at Econe, alongside the 1962, based on individual priests' preference, through 1974 ... from the SSPX website itself.  I've heard it from other priests who were at Econe at the time that both were being used until 1974, when the Archbishop shut down the 1965 Missal.

Except back in those days the issue was not about whether to use the 65 or 62 missal, the issue was about whether to use the 55, which was what we were using pre-SSPX, or the 62 missal which he had already approved for himself and his seminarians.

Personally, I do not believe for one second that he used both the 65 and 62 at Econe, I'm no eyewitness to this and I could well be 100% wrong on this point, but one thing my memory is very clear is that from the time that +ABL entered the scene, the issue was *always* between the 55 and 62 - for some it's still an issue even today. 

From my corner of the world, the 55 missal was the missal that was being used among *all* the independent priests where ever and who ever they were, not just the pre-SSPX and +ABL knew this. It could be (and I like to think) that he had the foresight to know his decision would have a very far reaching impact for a long time on trads everywhere, which was why it took him a few years of thoughtful deliberation after coming to the USA to decide.   

In the process of him making that decision official for the entire SSPX, which btw, was really a very, very big deal among the faithful back then, certainly he had to also consider the 65 missal, but that only means that he was comparing 65 to the 55.

Had he thought the 65 was acceptable, he necessarily would have then looked into successively later versions, but he stopped looking into the issue at the 65 because he saw the 65 was no good. 

The last three pages of this thread are nonsense.

The first two pages of this thread proved the charge of des Laurier was baseless, and none of the ambiguity which the sedevacantists have sought to create in order to rehabilitate the dishonesty of des Lauriers have availed them.  

I know zero about these Benedictines, but suffice to say that no matter how you look at it, it makes zero sense for +ABL to support that missal for them while he rejected it for himself and his SSPX.

Not to put +ABL in the same league as Pope St. Pius X, but this whole issue is like saying that Pope St. Pius X dabbled in modernism when he first became pope.

How long have you been a traditionalist?

Why do you make Msgr. Lefebvre to be to Rule of Faith?

BTW, even St. Pius X is not above criticism simply because he was pope and is a saint. His alterations to the breviary Psalter are troubling and set the precedent for all subsequent tampering with the Roman liturgy. I use the Divino Afflatu breviary arrangement of Sarto. The changes to the historical psalm arrangement are troubling though. And there are very troubling ecclesiological implications vis-a-vis the Novus Ordo for any Catholic who unquestionably recogises the papal claimants since 1958/63.

How long? I was raised a trad, I'm 63 years old. By the time I was 8 or 9 years old (1968 or 69) I knew my Latin responses and was serving Mass in basements, halls, living rooms etc.

😃👍 That is great! And I absolutely appreciated your perspective. You have served Mass for some old time greats.

I do know something of Dom Gerard's Le Barroux Benedictines though. Americans are often unaware of the rôle played and significance of the French traditionalist religious orders in the 1980s.

I too would deny that Msgr. Lefebvre ever used the 1969 missal, but I do know anecdotally that he used the interim missal before moving back to the 1962. Personally, I am certain it would be best were trads to dump all 20th-century liturgical reforms and return to the books as they existed at the death of Leo XIII.

😃👍 That is great! And I absolutely appreciated your perspective. You have served Mass for some old time greats.

I do know something of Dom Gerard's Le Barroux Benedictines though. Americans are often unaware of the rôle played and significance of the French traditionalist religious orders in the 1980s.

I too would deny that Msgr. Lefebvre ever used the 1969 missal, but I do know anecdotally that he used the interim missal before moving back to the 1962. Personally, I am certain it would be best were trads to dump all 20th-century liturgical reforms and return to the books as they existed at the death of Leo XIII.

In case you're interested, I attached a PDF of a Regina Coeli Report from 2009 that did a nice little write up on the early days of the SSPX in the states - I knew all those shown, except I can't remember the man in the wheel chair, all the laity shown in that article are dead a long time now.

If +ABL ever used anything other than the 55 or 62, he must have went out of his way to keep it private, or at least not advertise it, but I can't even imagine that. I can see MAYBE just after the close of V2 after getting temporarily swept up in the mayhem, but cannot imagine it beyond that.

I found this letter, written by Archbishop Lefebvre himself in Ridgefield, Connecticut in 1983, which attests that the Society has only used the 1962 missal. Here are the first seven paragraphs of the article:

Why the SSPX uses the 1962 missal - District of the USA

April 28, 1983
Ridgefield, Connecticut

"Dear friends and benefactors,

What was latent for many years in the relations between most of the priests of the North-east District and the Society of St. Pius X, and was the object of continual difficulties, has just come out into the open by the support given by these priests to the refusal of the Society's liturgy by one of the three young priests I ordained at Oyster Bay Cove on November 3, 1962.

Thus, their long-standing disagreement with the Society has now become public rebellion. It is a result of an extremist way of thinking and a tendency to schism in the domain of the liturgy, the papacy, and the sacraments of the reform.

They reject the liturgy which has always been used in the Society and consider it evil, the liturgy of Pope Pius XII, signed by Pope John XXIII, and so, the liturgy preceding the Council. They think and behave as if there is no Pope, suppressing all prayers for the pope. In practice, they tend to hold almost all the sacraments of the new rites to be invalid.

This radicalism is not the attitude of the Society.

The basic principle of the society's thinking and action in the painful crisis the Church is going through is the principle taught by St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica (II,II,q. 33,a.4). That one may not oppose the authority of the Church except in the case of imminent danger to the Faith. Now, there is no danger in the liturgy of Pope Pius XII and Pope john XXIII [1962], whereas there is great danger for the Faith in the liturgy of Pope Paul VI, which is unacceptable.

The Society acts on the assumption that Pope John Paul is pope and so prays for him and strives to bring him back to Tradition by praying for him, by meeting with those around him, and by writing to him.

The Society doesn't say that all the sacraments according to the new post-conciliar rites are invalid, but that due to bad translations, the lack of proper intention, and the changes introduced in matter and form, the number of invalid and doubtful sacraments is increasing. In order, then, to reach a decision in the practical order concerning the doubtfulness or invalidity of sacraments given by a priest, imbued with the ideas of the Council, a serious study of the various circuмstances is necessary.

[...]

+Marcel Lefebvre
Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X"
-----

Why the SSPX uses the 1962 missal - District of the USA

I found this letter, written by Archbishop Lefebvre himself in Ridgefield, Connecticut in 1983, which attests that the Society has only used the 1962 missal. Here are the first seven paragraphs of the article:

Why the SSPX uses the 1962 missal - District of the USA

Quote

April 28, 1983
Ridgefield, Connecticut

"Dear friends and benefactors,

What was latent for many years in the relations between most of the priests of the North-east District and the Society of St. Pius X, and was the object of continual difficulties, has just come out into the open by the support given by these priests to the refusal of the Society's liturgy by one of the three young priests I ordained at Oyster Bay Cove on November 3, 1962.

Thus, their long-standing disagreement with the Society has now become public rebellion. It is a result of an extremist way of thinking and a tendency to schism in the domain of the liturgy, the papacy, and the sacraments of the reform.

They reject the liturgy which has always been used in the Society and consider it evil, the liturgy of Pope Pius XII, signed by Pope John XXIII, and so, the liturgy preceding the Council. They think and behave as if there is no Pope, suppressing all prayers for the pope. In practice, they tend to hold almost all the sacraments of the new rites to be invalid.

This radicalism is not the attitude of the Society.

The basic principle of the society's thinking and action in the painful crisis the Church is going through is the principle taught by St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica (II,II,q. 33,a.4). That one may not oppose the authority of the Church except in the case of imminent danger to the Faith. Now, there is no danger in the liturgy of Pope Pius XII and Pope john XXIII [1962], whereas there is great danger for the Faith in the liturgy of Pope Paul VI, which is unacceptable.

The Society acts on the assumption that Pope John Paul is pope and so prays for him and strives to bring him back to Tradition by praying for him, by meeting with those around him, and by writing to him.

The Society doesn't say that all the sacraments according to the new post-conciliar rites are invalid, but that due to bad translations, the lack of proper intention, and the changes introduced in matter and form, the number of invalid and doubtful sacraments is increasing. In order, then, to reach a decision in the practical order concerning the doubtfulness or invalidity of sacraments given by a priest, imbued with the ideas of the Council, a serious study of the various circuмstances is necessary.

[...]

+Marcel Lefebvre
Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X"
-----

Why the SSPX uses the 1962 missal - District of the USA

Hello Mme. Meg-

This Letter is not meant to deny ever having said the 1965 Missal (which is acknowledged in Msgr. de Mallerais' Biography on pp. 415-416 in the English-lnguage edition), but simply to explain why the FSSPX was not reverting to the 1954 Missal vis-a-vis the demands of the sedevacantists.

While it is true that there were some liturgical peculiarities -not innovations- in this 1965 Missal (not 1969) as practised at Econe until 1974 (i.e., which were not maintained by other traditional priests, but which were still rubrically correct per the 1965 Missal; see the same pages cited above in the Biography), it nevertheless stretches credulity to suggest as some here are doing, that the same Msgr. des Lauriers so esteemed by them for his dogmatic, liturgical, and theological acuмen (and ghost writer of the Ottavianni Intervention), could nevertheless not tell the difference between the rubrical differences in the 1965 vs 1969 Missals (which are many and significant).

The irony, therefore, is that in attempting to save the honesty of Msgr. des Lauriers, one must sacrifice his liturgical competence (with all the consequences thereof), as clearly one cannot maintain both.

The difference between the rubrical differences in the 1965 vs 1969 Missals (which are many and significant).

This is not the case if the 1965 missal is used with the 1967 changes.

The 67 changes make the 1965 missal indistinguishable from the 1969 missal without careful attention to the Offertory (very hard when said silently) and the calendar.