These two orders are so utterly distinct that only the hierarchy has the right and authority to guide and govern the members for the purposes of the Church, while the duty of the faithful is to let themselves to be governed and to obediently follow the given path by the ruling class.

Been there, done that, it does not work if the priests have been compromised, the shepherds have been struck. The clergy has rarely led any uprising, they will always come in late when practically all is done already. 

If the SSPX followed that advise, they would not exist. If the Neo-SSPX followed that advise they would be with the SSPX. If all the people here followed that, CathInfo would not exist. 

Well, given the fact that the clerics of the Church, the hierarchy, brought us Vatican II and the New Mass, perhaps the TFP could be excused from a touch of anti-clericalism.  In fact, R&R as a whole hardly differs from these sentiments, operating under the implication that the legitimately appointed clerical hierarchy of the Church can sometimes not be trusted.

There is a visceral anti-clericalism in the TFP: everything that comes from the clergy is biasedly received. Basically, it is affirmed that all priests are ignorant, lacking zeal or interested and such other characteristics. Well, thus, having in mind the divine constitution of the Church which was instituted by Jesus Christ, the habitual anti-clericalism of the TFP, latent, makes it a heretical sect, and therefore, as I said, animated by a principle contrary to established dogma by Jesus Christ in the constitution of His Church.

The TFP, however, had a healthy beginning. There was a certain evolution in the apostolate made by the biweekly newspaper of the Marian Congregation of St. Cecilia entitled The Legionary.

As a serious and well-intentioned movement, it sought to strengthen the intellectual and religious formation of the members of the Congregation and, consequently, of the biweekly readers. It was influential throughout Brazil. This was the era of [its] obedience to Monsignors Duarte and Leme. I followed and approved of its apostolate, also when it began to fall itself into the anti-clerical spirit, which began by consolidating its positions and then reversing them, putting the Clergy in tow behind a charismatic layman with the monopoly of orthodoxy. Maybe I gave them support beyond a licit point. I withdrew it only when it became clear that my warnings were not being taken into account. They have become useless.

It is true to note that the deceptions of certain members of the Hierarchy... explain the scandal of the "TFPists", but this does not justify the positions they have taken. And much less for its leader, Plinio.

I wasn't aware of the beginnings of TFP, in that it was originally obedient to Monsignors Duarte and Leme. I wonder at what point this obedience ended, and they began to be loyal (and obedient?) to Plinio.

Bp. Castro de Mayer says that..."It is true that the deceptions of certain members of the hierarchy...explain the scandal of the "TFPists," but this does not justify the positions they have taken. And much less for its leader, Plinio."

Bp. Mayer only mentions Plinio briefly, in the above statement. But of course his letter mainly focuses on the error of following a lay leader to the point of fanaticism.

The TFP is one thing, the TIA is another. When we talk about TIA around here, we place it under Atila's leadership and usually with the understanding that Atila is the only one carrying out Plinio's vision of what the TFP should have been. When we speak about the TFP, it's almost always in regards to its past with Plinio. The TFP as it is today hardly gets any airplay, but with Plinio and Atila gone they seem to have dialed back their initial fervor to the point that Bishop de Castro Mayer's condemnation hardly seems to fit them anymore, for better or worse. "Better" because they avoid getting involved with traditionalist infighting and "worse" because they shy away from VII.

TIA on the other hand, seems to have proved beyond a shadow of doubt that they won't be content to merely contribute to the growing scholarly criticism of the VII/NO faction (their efforts here were fantastic), but they must also act as TFP apologists and hatchetmen using some of the weakest standards of investigative journalism I have ever seen. And now that they've continued to set their sights on Archbishop Lefebvre with no other cause than to say 'we did it first and we did it better,' they've only exposed themselves as a compromised organization.

Note that when someone brought up the subject of Dr. Chojnowski's investigation of the two Lucys, all TIA could say was 'we did it first.' They couldn't be pleased that someone else was hoping to add to the discussion, they wanted all the credit :

https://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B999_M026_Glorious.html
(Re-discovering the Two Sister Lucys  letter)

In 2006, TIA published their extensive photographic comparisons, proving the new Sr. Lucy was a fake.

According to Most Holy Family Monastery, (not that I am a fan) TIA stole their research:
https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholic/two-sister-lucys-traditioninaction/

We were definitely the first organization to come out with the facts that there was an impostor Sr. Lucy.  We had been referring to the false Sr. Lucy as an impostor for years on our website, and publicly stated that the Vatican’s Lucy is an impostor in issue #5 of our magazine, which was published years ago.  Our recent article was simply the detailed treatment containing all the facts and points about an issue we’d been saying things about for years.

While the website to which you refer says that they haven’t yet “read” our analysis – that’s an interesting way of putting it considering that one can get the gist of what was being said without “reading” the entire thing but by looking quickly at the pictures – they didn’t deny that they were familiar with the article or that their idea to publish their own article came after hearing about or browsing through our exposé.  It’s almost certain that they were familiar with our article because a website which links to their articles and our articles had a major link with pictures to our treatment of the issue.  They may have browsed it without “reading” the entire thing.  And once they saw that this idea was now circulating due to our having “broken the story,” they then had the courage to do their own article seeing that others were already beginning to accept the idea on a wide scale.  That’s a key point: many people who don’t love God first and don’t stand for the truth will come out with things – even things they may have privately known were true for some time – only once the idea has already gained some popular support thanks to the stand of others, so that they can latch on to the now-popular bandwagon.

And how is TFP money used, for what?