Defending +Archbishop Lefebvre: Against TIA’s Errors

[Stone]

The Catacombs has in the past shared articles from TIA whenever it has published traditional Catholic teaching. But on this topic, which is their opinion, we echo this defense by the The Catholic Trumpet and strenuously disagree with TIA's position:

Defending +Archbishop Lefebvre: Against TIA’s Errors

The Catholic Trumpet [slightly adapted]  | January 7, 2025


It is with deep disappointment that we address an article published by Tradition in Action (TIA), titled “Lefebvre Mason Polemic VI: Objection ‘Arch. Léfèbvre Was Not a Mason’” (accessible here). While TIA has made valuable contributions to the traditional Catholic cause, this piece profoundly misrepresents +Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, spreading unverified accusations and conflating his legacy with unrelated controversies.

As Pope St. Pius X warned in his encyclical Notre Charge Apostolique: “The true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries nor innovators, but traditionalists.” It is with this fidelity to Tradition that we undertake the task of exposing the falsehoods in TIA’s accusations while upholding the truth of +Archbishop Lefebvre’s heroic mission to preserve the Faith.


Editor’s Note:

The Catholic Trumpet seeks to uphold the truth of the Faith as handed down through the Church and preserved by +Archbishop Lefebvre. In this article, we address Tradition in Action’s (TIA) misrepresentation of +Archbishop Lefebvre and their unjust accusations. While TIA claims to have separated from Tradition, Family, and Property (TFP) due to internal disagreements, it is evident that they still rely on principles rooted in Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira’s teachings, which +Bishop Antônio de Castro Mayer rightly condemned as anti-Catholic and heretical.

Our critique is not made out of hostility but arises from the necessity of correcting errors that obscure the truth and create unnecessary divisions among faithful Catholics. As +Archbishop Lefebvre taught, fidelity to the Church’s perennial teaching admits no compromise. It is in this spirit of total fidelity that we challenge the errors and misrepresentations propagated by TIA.


1. +Archbishop Lefebvre: Defender of Tradition and Opponent of Freemasonry

A Legacy of Resistance

+Archbishop Lefebvre’s unwavering opposition to Freemasonry and modernism is well-documented. He consistently denounced Freemasonry as “the tool of Satan,” warning of its infiltration into the Church to bring about its destruction. Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical Humanum Genus (1884), emphasized the grave danger posed by Freemasonry: “Let us never forget that Christianity and Freemasonry are essentially incompatible, so that to enroll in one means deserting the other.”


Bishop de Castro Mayer’s Collaboration

+Archbishop Lefebvre worked closely with +Bishop Antônio de Castro Mayer, another stalwart defender of Tradition, to oppose the novelties of Vatican II. In 1984, +Bishop de Castro Mayer issued a scathing condemnation of TFP (Tradition, Family, and Property)  the ideological predecessor of TIA, describing it as an “anti-Catholic, anti-clerical heretical sect.”

To provide complete clarity and transparency, +Bishop de Castro Mayer’s full letter of condemnation is included below this article for readers to evaluate directly. This historical evidence exposes the deep-rooted errors within the movement that now seeks to malign the legacy of +Archbishop Lefebvre.


2. Addressing TIA’s Claims

Freemasonry Allegations

TIA’s claim that Lefebvre had ties to Freemasonry is based on circumstantial and unverified evidence. Key points refuting this:

• No Evidence of Masonic Affiliation: Lefebvre’s public condemnations of Freemasonry contradict any suggestion of his involvement.

• False Claims of Masonic Associations: Allegations regarding Lefebvre’s association with the “Order of Our Lady of Sion” conflate it with other unrelated organizations.

• Baseless Accusations of Masonic Bands: TIA’s claims about a Masonic band in an SSPX procession lack any credible substantiation.


Signing of Vatican II Documents

Critics often point to +Archbishop Lefebvre’s signing of certain Vatican II documents as evidence of his supposed compromise. However:

• Historical Context: Lefebvre signed some documents under obedience and in the spirit of collegiality. He later condemned the Council’s novelties, stating: “The Council has turned its back on Tradition and broken with the Church of the past. It is a schismatic council.”

• Development of Opposition: His signing was not an endorsement but a procedural action. He spent the next 25+ years opposing the Council’s errors.

• Typology: Like St. Peter, who repented after denying Christ, Lefebvre’s clarity and opposition to Vatican II only grew over time, leading him to heroically defend the Faith against modernist Rome.


Celebration of the Novus Ordo

• Firm Rejection: +Archbishop Lefebvre consistently rejected the Novus Ordo Missae, referring to it as “a Protestantized liturgy.” This is consistent with the Critical Study of the New Order of Mass (Ottaviani Intervention), which observed: “The reform… represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent.”

• Even If He Had: Hypothetically, if he had celebrated the Novus Ordo early on (a claim for which no proof exists), this would only emphasize his later repentance and complete rejection of the New Mass. His actions in preserving the Traditional Latin Mass are undeniable proof of his fidelity.


Conflation of SSPX and Neo-SSPX

TIA fails to distinguish between the original SSPX founded by +Archbishop Lefebvre and the Neo-SSPX, which compromised with modernist Rome in 2012. This conflation misleads readers and unfairly tarnishes Lefebvre’s legacy.


3. TFP and TIA: A Cultic Legacy

Cult Practices of TFP

Documented evidence reveals that TFP engaged in cultic practices, including the veneration of its founder, Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira. This included “slave” ceremonies and prayers elevating Plinio to a semi-divine status.


Átila Sinke Guimarães’ Involvement

Átila Sinke Guimarães, the founder of TIA, was deeply involved in TFP, even serving as Slave #11. His defense of TFP’s practices undermines his credibility in critiquing Archbishop Lefebvre.


Bishop de Castro Mayer’s Condemnation

+Bishop de Castro Mayer condemned TFP for its esoteric character, religious fanaticism, and cultic veneration of Plinio. This raises serious concerns about the ideological foundations of TIA.


4. Recognizing the True Enemy

It is essential to recognize the true enemy: the Synagogue of Satan, as referenced in Revelation 2:9 and 3:9. This is rabbinical Judaism, which opposes Christ and operates through its agents, such as Freemasonry. Freemasonry has infiltrated the Church, including the Neo-SSPX, where it continues to operate, spreading confusion and division.

As Pope St. Pius X wrote in Pascendi Dominici Gregis: “One cannot excise the poison of modernism without going to its root, for its tentacles touch every aspect of Catholic life.” Let us remain steadfast in identifying these errors while refusing to adopt the Kabbalistic or Talmudic mentality that denies the law of non-contradiction. Truth is singular, and +Archbishop Lefebvre’s consistent witness to Tradition exemplifies this fidelity.


5. A Call for Unity and Fidelity

+Archbishop Lefebvre’s legacy is one of unwavering fidelity to the Faith during the Church’s darkest hour. TIA’s unfounded accusations against him are not only misleading but also harmful to the cause of Tradition.

We urge faithful Catholics to:

1. Uphold the truth about +Archbishop Lefebvre’s mission and legacy.

2. Pray for unity in the fight against modernism, secularism and Judeo-Freemasonry.

As Our Lord said: “By their fruits you shall know them” (Matt. 7:16). Lefebvre’s fruits are evident in the preservation of the Traditional Faith, the formation of valid priests, and the defense of Catholic doctrine.

May this article contribute to a clearer understanding of +Archbishop Lefebvre’s legacy and inspire unity among faithful Catholics in the ongoing effort to preserve and restore the Church in fidelity to Tradition.

Below, we include Bishop de Castro Mayer’s letter condemning TFP, as historical evidence of the errors underlying the attacks on +Archbishop Lefebvre.


No Compromise. No Retreat.


-The☩Trumpet

Appendix: Bishop de Castro Mayer’s Letter on TFP
The full text of +Bishop Antônio de Castro Mayer’s 1984 letter condemning TFP is provided below for readers’ reference.

(The following letter was written in 1984 and later published in the Brazilian newspaper Folha da Manhã in 1991. It was also reprinted in Le Sel de la Terre, no. 28, Spring 1999, in an article titled “Documents sur la TFP.”)


Dear N.,

I owe you an answer to your painful letter of September 24, 1984, that, as the postmark indicates, you sent me on September 25th.

In this case, I can only give you one piece of advice: pray, pray a lot, above all the [15-decade] Rosary or at least the [5-decade] Rosary, asking the Virgin Mother, Mediatrix of all graces, to enlighten her son and make him see that the TFP is a heretical sect. For, in fact, although they do not say or write it, the TFP lives and behaves in accord with a principle that fundamentally undermines the truth of Christendom, that is, of the Catholic Church.

Indeed, it is de fide that Jesus Christ founded His Church—destined to maintain on earth the true worship of God and to lead souls toward eternal salvation—as an unequal society composed of two classes: one that governs, teaches, and sanctifies, composed of members of the clergy, and another—the faithful—who receive the teaching, are governed, and are sanctified. This is a dogma de fide.

St. Pius X affirmed this clearly when he wrote:

“The Church is, in its very nature, an unequal society, meaning that it comprises two orders of persons: shepherds and flock, those who belong to the various ranks of the Hierarchy and the faithful multitude. These two orders are so completely distinct that the Hierarchy alone 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 be governed and to obediently follow the given path by the ruling class.” (Encyclical Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906)

The whole history of the Church, as recorded in the New Testament, attests to this truth as a fundamental dogma of her constitution. It was only to the Apostles that Jesus said, “Go and teach all nations.” The Acts of the Apostles also show us the life of the Church in the times after Jesus Christ.

Because of this, it is a heretical subversion to habitually follow a layman—therefore a non-member of the Hierarchy—as a spokesman for orthodoxy. These individuals disregard what the Church says or what the bishops teach, instead choosing to follow this or that layman. This attitude—even if not openly stated—effectively positions the lay “leader” as an arbiter of orthodoxy. It is accompanied by a sudden but real mistrust of the hierarchy and clergy in general.

There is a visceral anti-clericalism in the TFP: everything that comes from the clergy is received with bias. Essentially, all priests are deemed ignorant, lacking zeal, self-interested, or otherwise defective. Such a position, when considered in light of the divine constitution of the Church, makes this habitual anti-clericalism heretical.

Thus, as I said, the TFP is animated by a principle contrary to the dogma established by Jesus Christ in the constitution of His Church.


The History of TFP’s Deviation

The TFP had a healthy beginning. It evolved from the apostolate of the biweekly newspaper of the Marian Congregation of St. Cecilia, titled 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 obedience to Monsignors Duarte and Leme.

I followed and approved of its apostolate during this time, even as it began to drift into an anti-clerical spirit. Eventually, this spirit consolidated its positions and inverted them, putting the clergy in tow behind a charismatic layman who monopolized orthodoxy. Perhaps I gave them support beyond a licit point. I withdrew my support only when it became clear that my warnings were being ignored.


Charismatic Fervor and Fanaticism

The deceptions of certain members of the hierarchy partially explain the scandal of the “TFPists,” but this does not justify their positions—even less so for their leader, Plinio.

As I noted earlier, charismatic fervor produces a certain fanaticism. Individuals become incapable of seeing objective reality or perceiving even fundamental errors. This blindness stems from an inversion: they follow a layman instead of the legitimate pastors of the Holy Church.

I must emphasize that prayer is the only remedy. Without prayer, nothing is achieved. Our Lord said, “Ask, and you shall receive.”

I ask Our Lord to grant you and your family a Holy and Merry Christmas and many years filled with His grace.

I also ask that you pray for me, a servant in Christ Jesus.



- Antônio de Castro Mayer

Bishop Emeritus of Campos