True, the letter does not deny having ever said the '65 missal. That subject is not brought up. However, +ABL says that the Society has always used the liturgy of Pope Pius XII, signed by Pope John XXIII, and so, the liturgy preceding the Council, and that the sedevacantists (to whom he was referring) rejected that Mass.

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.

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

Just because you don't accept the truth of the matter is no reason to wallow in your own inventions. I mean, it says what it says, and if you actually looked, you would find there are more SSPX links that say the same thing.

Here's one, from an FSSPX priest that took all of about 10 seconds to find, look for yourself and you will find others and be freed of your own inventions:

"...In the first example, he was addressing a crisis in the United States District. Some of his priests, including Seminary rector Fr Donald Sanborn, were refusing to use the 1962 missal. After all, they said, it was promulgated by a Modernist Pope, John XXIII. This was a classic case of considering the person exercising authority (Pope John XXIII), without considering whether he was using his authority well or ill.

No, said Archbishop Lefebvre. There is nothing in the 1962 missal that poses a danger to the faith. As such, the SSPX has no justification for refusing it. As he explained to the American seminarians at the time, he was, in this decision, only applying the principle of the Church."

Well, you have one article saying contrary to all the other articles, as well as my own personal experience in the situation. I have never seen nor heard of +ABL using the 65 missal until this thread, which only means that if he ever did use it, it was before my time. As for the link in the OP saying he said it in June of 1980, that is a flat out lie.

In your OP, the SSPX link says:
"...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."

Msgr. de Mallerais' Biography says that the 1965 Missal was used in the beginning at Econe. All that is, as I said, is total and complete BS.

Thanks, Stubborn. This quote that you posted above from +ABL seems quite clear, as I'm sure you'll agree. I hope de Lugo realizes that we're on the same side. But I, for one, will side with what +ABL wrote, rather than what +de Mallerais, or +des Lauriers wrote, or what other sedevacantists write (who have an agenda).

Perhaps you are operating under the additional mistake of believing the Novus Ordo was promulgated in 1965?

If not, I'm not understanding why you believe the 3rd paragraph contradicts the 2nd?

I don't know when Econe was only new, but no matter how anyone looks at it, it makes zero sense for him to have used the NOM even then. I just cannot see him opening a trad seminary mainly because of the NOM, only for him to start out the gate using the NOM.