CathInfo.com

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)