@Lisi Sterndorfer weil die Kirche nie ein Gemischtwaren Laden war wo jeder sich das aussucht was er möchte
und den meisten Tradis reicht ja nicht wenn Sie bekommen Sie kritisieren permanent die Liturgiereform und versuchen auch Kirchen und Gemeinden zu verändernwo sie nur zu Gast sind(zuletzt in New Haven St. Stanislaus und jetzt hatte die polnische Pfarrei genug ')
In Wien ist auch die alte Messe aus einem kontemplativen Nonnenkloster geflogen weil man sich nicht an die Vorgaben der Schwestern gehalten hat
um 19 Uhr 30 muß Ruhe sein

As for the letter quoted above - it is another example of the old "indult" fable assuming that Montini and his bros in the ecclesial revolution were entitled to abolish the ancient liturgical use of the Holy Roman Church confirmed by the decrees of the Council of Trent (several of them, canons included refer explicitly to the Roman Rite of the Mass) and the perennial privilege of Pope St. Pius V (Quo primum tempore).
No, they were not but weak effeminate shepherds have been telling (for years) their miserable sheep fables that the solemn and ancient rite may disappear at the whim of one pope (or his later imitator) , one mason-architect of the new rite, some revolutionary clergy intoxicated with new non-Catholic theology or rather ideology, some Protestant advisors and Jewish lobbyists (see Talmudic prayers replacing the Offertory for example and the very telling story of the Good Friday oratio for the Jews).

The most blatant lie however is the one when they are telling that the current edition of the Novus Ordo missal is at the same time the current edition of the Roman rite - the rite of St. Leo the Great, St. Gregory the Great and St. Pius V, whereas a simple comparision of both rites starting for their cores i.e. the Canon / optional Eucharistic prayers of NO would tell even a child that we are not talking about the same liturgical use here.
They have been attempting to impose the above lie as a legal fiction to save the revolution by hermeneutics of absurdity - and to be honest Bergoglio is more honest here in Traditionis Custodes than Ratzinger with his Summorum Pontificum.

Concerning groundless theories about Msgr. Lefebvre:
"His criticisms of the liturgical insanity that was unleashed after the council was directed at typical vernacular N.O. that jettisoned all tradional elements which became the status quo."
----
His criticisms are summed up here:
A Critical Study of the New Mass
and relate to the typical i.e. normative Latin Novus Ordo as presented by Bugnini.
It is Archbishop Lefebvre who made Fr. Gerard des Lauriers contribute in the Critical Study of the New Mass (cf. e.g. Introduction to A Critical Study of the Novus Ordo Missae "The Ottaviani Intervention")

The translation question and additional "abuses" within the NO system are separate questions.

Archbishop Lefebvre initially and for a time allowed the seminarians at Econe to attend the Novus Ordo being said in Latin ad orientum by a pius monk who lived in a nearby monastery. However, he forbade them to attend the N.O. in the vernacular ad populum. His criticisms of the liturgical insanity that was unleashed after the council was directed at typical vernacular N.O. that jettisoned all tradional elements which became the status quo.