On 25 January 1964 with the Motu Proprio Sacraments Liturgiam, Pope admits national languages only for the readings and the Gospel of the nuptial Mass.......

On 26 September 1964, with instruction Inter Oecuмenici, prepared by the Consilium and promulgated by the Congregation of Rites, the introduction of national languages is authorized in the readings, in the gospel, in the prayer of the faithful, in the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus and Agnus Dei; in the songs, acclamations and greetings, in the Lord's Prayer and the Prayer over the Gifts. This form of the rite (is) in force since March 1965.......

On 31 January 1967, Paul VI grants experimentally the use of the vernacular even in the canon of the Mass,.......

On June 21 of that year, the Consilium sent to the presidents of episcopal conferences a circular letter, signed by Cardinal Lercaro, which states: "After the initial starting point and the extension of the language spoken in the preface, this is the last stage for the gradual extension of the vernacular........  

On September 3, 1969, speaking of the reform at the general audience, Pope Montini did not hide the risks: "This reform presents some danger; one especially, the arbitrariness, and therefore that of a disintegration of the spiritual unity of the ecclesial society, the excellence of prayer and of the dignity of the rite. … "

On November 26 of that year, now on the eve of the promulgation, Paul VI presents it to the faithful in his most significant change, the disappearance of the Latin: "Here, it is clear, will be felt the biggest news: that of language. No more will Latin be the main language of the Mass, but the spoken language. For those who know the beauty, the  power, the sanctity of the Latin expression, certainly the replacement of the vernacular is a great sacrifice: we lose the mode of speaking of the Christian centuries, become almost profane intruders and literary expression in the sacred precinct, and so lose big part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual fact, which is the Gregorian chant. We have, yes, reason to regret, and almost to lose ourselves: what will replace this angelic language? It is a sacrifice of inestimable price. "

From the above, it looks probable.

Doing some searches, I found another article which looks disturbing to me:

Msgr. Lefebvre Used to Say the New Mass

How much can such an article be credible? I think that TIA are quite reliable.

Quote from: Stubborn

From the link above: "You celebrated the “innovated Mass” from the beginning of April 1969 until 24th December 1971. I would say this is false.

In 1968, we found the True Mass in a basement, by 1969, I was an altar boy for Fr. Bonfil, the first SSPX priest - (here is a PDF that gives a little history about that era).

46 years ago in 1969 I was only 9 years old, so take this for what it's worth, but I remember that back then, Fr. and some of his group were searching for a trad bishop for his little group of trads  and +ABL's name was one that was the topic of many of his conversations and a few of his sermons, I remember one sermon where Fr. said that +ABL did not say the "hootenanny mass".  

So imo, if +ABL did say the new mass, I do not believe that he said it for very long, I highly doubt he said it from 1969 to 1971.

Thanks for your insight, Stubborn. I await more responses from other fellow members of this Forum.

I think that one ought to have great hesitation is accepting this alleged letter at face value -- the first question that jumps to mind is, "why has this only surfaced now?" decades after the deaths of both Abp. Lefebvre and Bp. Guérard des Lauriers. It is troubling, because there is no way for anyone to contact Bp. Guérard des Lauriers to confirm whether he wrote the letter or ascertain whether that which has been reproduced on the internet is accurate.

On the other hand, we have available to us the testimony of many living sources who can be "cross examined" on the matter, who say that Abp. Lefebvre never did celebrate the New Mass. One of the concerned correspondents, offered quotes from Marcel Lefebvre by Bp. Tissier de Mallerais. This reader wrote:

On p. 416, he mentions "Since Archbishop Lefebvre was opposed to the New Mass, he would not have it in the seminary. On the eve of the first Sunday of Advent 1969 when the NOM came into force in the diocese of Fribourg, the Archbishop simply said: "We'll keep the old Mass, eh?" Everyone agreed. ......according to Rome, the New Mass would only be obligatory at the end of 1971. Until then at least, the Old Mass could be maintained."

On p. 461, it says, Archbishop Lefebvre did not found his Society against the New Mass, but for the priesthood. However, the concerns of the priesthood now brought him to reject the new Ordo Missae. On June 9, 1971, the Archbishop returned from Paris.... At Econe, he called together the teachers and seminarians and began by handing out a typed sheet (which he did only rarely) with a summary of his talk, written on November 25, 1970. Until then, he had kept to the "old Mass" because it was still permitted: now, however, he would reject the Novus Ordo."

If you notice the dates, etc., it sounds like he never said the New Mass. Also, it seems to me in a sermon or somewhere in the Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, he said he had never said the New Mass.

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume 1, Chapter 11

The Ordinations of 29 June 1976
 

During the sermon the Archbishop refers to the arrival, the day before, of a representative of the Vatican who had placed a new Missal into his hands and promised all the difficulties between the Archbishop and the Vatican would be straightened out if he would use this Missal the next day. This emissary was the Senegalese Cardinal Hyacinthe Thiandoum who had been ordained a priest and consecrated as a bishop by Mgr. Lefebvre. The Cardinal's interview with the Archbishop lasted until the early hours of the morning of 29 June and in consequence Mgr. Lefebvre had very little rest before the arduous ceremonies which faced him on the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul.  ...It is of some significance that despite all the invective it had poured upon the Archbishop and his Seminary, the Vatican was prepared to normalize relations at the price of the Archbishop's celebrating just one New Mass.

 

29 June 1976
Sermon delivered by Archbishop Lefebvre at the Ordination of thirteen priests and thirteen sub-deacons on the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul, 1976

But if in all objectivity we seek the true motive animating those who ask us not to perform these ordinations, if we look for the hidden motive, it is because we are ordaining these priests that they may say the Mass of all time.1 It is because they know that these priests will be faithful to the Mass of the Church, to the Mass of Tradition, to the Mass of all time, that they urge us not to ordain them.

In proof of this, consider that six times in the last three weeks-six times-we have been asked to re-establish normal relations with Rome and to give as proof the acceptance of the new rite; and I have been asked to celebrate it myself. They have gone so far as to send me someone who offered to concelebrate with me in the new rite so as to manifest that I accepted voluntarily this new liturgy, saying that in this way all would be straightened out between us and Rome. They put a new Missal into my hands, saying "Here is the Mass that you must celebrate and that you shall celebrate henceforth in all your houses." They told me as well that if on this date, today, this 29th of June, before your entire assembly, we celebrated a Mass according to the new rite, all would be straightened out henceforth between ourselves and Rome. Thus it is clear, it is evidence that it is on the problem of the Mass that the whole drama between Econe and Rome depends.

Are we wrong in obstinately wanting to keep the rite of all time? We have, of course, prayed, we have consulted, we have reflected, we have meditated to discover if it is not indeed we who are in error, or if we do not really have a sufficient reason not to submit ourselves to the new rite. And in fact, the very insistence of those who were sent from Rome to ask us to change rite makes us wonder.

... And we have the precise conviction that this new rite of Mass expresses a new faith, a faith which is not ours, a faith which is not the Catholic Faith. This New Mass is a symbol, is an expression, is an image of a new faith, of a Modernist faith. For if the most holy Church has wished to guard throughout the centuries this precious treasure which She has given us of the rite of Holy Mass which was canonized by Saint Pius V, it has not been without purpose. It is because this Mass contains our whole faith, the whole Catholic Faith: faith in the Most Holy Trinity, faith in the Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, faith in the Redemption of Our Lord Jesus Christ, faith in the Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ which flowed for the redemption of our sins, faith in supernatural grace, which comes to us from the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which comes to us from the Cross, which comes to us through all the Sacraments.

This is what we believe. This is what we believe in celebrating the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass of all time. It is a lesson of faith and at the same time a source of our faith, indispensable for us in this age when our faith is attacked from all sides. We have need of this true Mass, of this Mass of all time of this Sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ really to fill our souls with the Holy Ghost and with the strength of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Now it is evident that the new rite, if I may say so, supposes another conception of the Catholic religion-another religion. It is no longer the priest who offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, it is the assembly. Now this is an entire program -an entire program. Henceforth it is the assembly also that replaces authority in the Church. It is the assembly of bishops that replaces the power of (individual) bishops. It is the priests' council that replaces the power of the bishop in the diocese. It is numbers that command from now on in the Holy Church. And this is expressed in the Mass precisely because the assembly replaces the priest, to such a point that now many priests no longer want to celebrate Holy Mass when there is no assembly. Slowly but surely the Protestant notion of the Mass is being introduced into the Holy Church. 2

And this is consistent with the mentality of modern man- absolutely consistent. For it is the democratic ideal which is the fundamental idea of modem man, that is to say, that the power lies with the assembly, that authority is in the people, in the masses, and not in God. And this is most grave. Because we believe that God is all-powerful; we believe that God has all authority; we believe that all authority comes from God. "Omnis potestas a Deo." All authority comes from God. We do not believe that authority comes from below. Now that is the mentality of modern man.

And the New Mass is not less than the expression of this idea that authority is at the base, and no longer in God. This Mass is no longer a hierarchical Mass; it is a democratic Mass. And this is most grave. It is the expression of a whole new ideology. The ideology of modern man has been brought into our most sacred rites.

And this is what is at present corrupting the entire Church. For by this idea of power bestowed on the lower rank, in the Holy Mass, they have destroyed the priesthood! They are destroying the priesthood, for what is the priest, if the priest no longer has a personal power, that power which is given to him by his ordination, as these future priests are going to receive it in a moment? They are going to receive a character, a character which will put them above the people of God! Nevermore shall they be able to say after the ceremony about to be performed, they shall never be able to say, "We are men like other men." This would not be true.

.... This is what we believe. This is why we think that we cannot accept the new rite, which is the work of another ideology, or a new ideology .They thought that they would attract the world by accepting the ideas of the world. They thought they would attract to the Church those who do not believe by accepting the ideas of these persons who do not believe, by accepting the ideas of modern man-this modern man who is a Liberal, who is a Liberal, who is a Modernist; who is a man who accepts the plurality of religions, who no longer accepts the social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ. This I have heard twice from the envoys of the Holy See, who told me that the social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ was no longer possible in our time; that we must accept definitely the pluralism of religions. That is what they told me. That the Encyclical Quas Primas, which is so beautiful, on the social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which was written by Pope Pius XI, would never be written today by the Pope. This is what they said to me-the official envoys of the Holy See.

Well, we are not of this religion. We do not accept this new religion. We are of the religion of all time; we are of the Catholic religion. We are not of this 'universal religion' as they call it today-this is not the Catholic religion any more. We are not of this Liberal, Modernist religion which has its own worship, its own priests, its own faith, its own catechisms, its own Bible, the 'ecuмenical Bible'-these things we do not accept. We do not accept the 'ecuмenical Bible.' There is no 'ecuмenical Bible.' There is only the Bible of God, the Bible of the Holy Ghost, written under the influence of the Holy Ghost. It is the Word of God. We do not have the right to mix it with the words of men. There is no 'ecuмenical Bible' which could possibly exist. There is only one Word - the Word of the Holy Ghost. We do not accept the catechisms which no longer uphold our Creed. And so on and so forth.

We cannot accept these things. They are contrary to our Faith. We regret infinitely, it is an immense, immense pain for us, to think that we are in difficulty with Rome because of our faith! How is this possible? It is something that exceeds the imagination, that we should never have been able to imagine, that we should never have been able to believe, especially in our childhood-then when all was uniform, when the whole Church believed in Her general unity, and held the same Faith, the same Sacraments, the same Sacrifice of the Mass, the same catechism. And behold, suddenly all is in division, in chaos.

I said as much to those who came from Rome. I said so: Christians are torn apart in their families, in their homes, among their children; they are torn apart in their hearts by this division in the Church, by this new religion now being taught and practiced. Priests are dying prematurely, torn apart in their hearts and in their souls at the thought that they no longer know what to do: either to submit to obedience and lose, in a way, the faith of their childhood and of their youth, and renounce the promises which they made at the time of their ordination in taking the anti-Modernist oath; or to have the impression of separating themselves from him who is our father, the Pope, from him who is the representative of Saint Peter. What agony for these priests! Many priests have died prematurely of grief. Priests are now hounded from their churches, persecuted, because they say the Mass of all time.

We are in a truly dramatic situation. We have to choose between an appearance, I should say, of disobedience-for the Holy Father cannot ask us to abandon our faith. It is impossible, impossible-the abandonment of our faith. We choose not to abandon our faith, for in that we cannot go wrong. In that which the Catholic Church has taught for two thousand years, the Church cannot be in error. It is absolutely impossible, and that is why  we are attached to this tradition which is expressed in such an admirable and definitive manner, as Pope Saint Pius V said so well, in a definitive manner in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Tomorrow perhaps, in the newspapers, will appear our condemnation. It is quite possible, because of these ordinations today. I myself shall probably be struck by suspension. These young priests will be struck by an irregularity which in theory should prevent them from saying Holy Mass. It is possible. Well, I appeal to Saint Pius V-Saint Pius V, who in his Bull said that, in perpetuity, no priest could incur a censure, whatever it might be, in perpetuity, for saying this Mass. And consequently, this censure, this excommunication, if there was one, these censures, if there are any, are absolutely invalid, contrary to that which Saint Pius V established in perpetuity in his Bull: that never in any age could one inflict a censure on a priest who says this Holy Mass.

Why? Because this Mass is canonized.3 He canonized it definitively. Now a Pope cannot remove a canonization. The Pope can make a new rite, but he cannot remove a canonization. He cannot forbid a Mass that is canonized. Thus, if he has canonized a Saint, another Pope cannot come and say that this Saint is no longer canonized. That is not possible. Now this Holy Mass was canonized by Pope Saint Pius V. And that is why we can say it in all tranquillity, in all security, and even be certain that, in saying this Mass, we are professing our faith, we are upholding our faith, we are upholding the faith of the Catholic people. This is, indeed, the best manner of upholding it.


 

1. The Archbishop's frequently repeated expression, 'la Messe de toujours, ' has no suitable English equivalent. In translating it as 'the Mass of all time,' the translator has attempted to render the literal sense without losing the flavor of the original French expression.