Gloria TV is still using the Gruner-Vennari model of Catholicism.

Fr.Neto Ray at Gloria TV is still following the Lefebvre model of Vatican Council II and extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).Both are flawed.A false premise is used to create a non traditional conclusion. This was the ruse of the liberals.So in Switzerland, France and Germany, there is false interpretation of the Council. A rational and traditional interpretation is avoided.

Gloria TV criticizes the Amazon Synod but does not see its link to Vatican Council II(Cushingite).The Council is interpreted with the false premise( invisible non Catholics saved outside the Church are visible).It knows of only a Cushingite interpretation.

Gloria TV does not cite Vatican Council II (Feeneyite) which supports only exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church with no exceptions. 

Only in this way could the Working Paper of the Synod be criticized. Without Vatican Council II( Feeneyite) the Lefebvrists could not contradict the Working Paper which rejected exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church with the need for all to be members.

 Gloria TV cites Chris Ferrara and  Michael Matt  who use a false premise and inference to interpret the Council. So there are orthodox and ambiguous passages in the Council for them. This would be normal with a Cushingite interpretation of the Council.

But with a Feeneyite interpretation i.e seeing hypothetical cases as  being hypothetical cases, there are only orthodox passages in Vatican Council II which support EENS. The ambiguous passages are really only hypothetical cases. All of them, without an exception. So they do not contradict the orthodox passages. Vatican Council II only affirms the strict interpretation of EENS with Ad Gentes 7 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.

Similarly Roberto dei Mattei and Chris Ferrara cited often on Gloria TV have written books interpreting Vatican Council II with the false premise. They still will not affirm the Council without their irrationality. They do not want to affirm the past ecclesiocentric ecclesiology,an ecumenism of return and Feeneyite EENS. So they conveniently continue with the false interpretation of the Council, which is approved by the Left and the Vatican.

They choose to assume that unknown cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I),are visible exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.This was the mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston.

So Gloria TV's false interpretation of Vatican Council II is approved by the Lefebvrists and the cardinals, bishops and priests in the dioceses of Switzerland, France and Germany.

With the traditionalists interpreting invisible cases of LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II, as being visible examples of salvation outside the Church,there is a new ecclesiology in the Church. This is the new ecclesiology today at Mass in Latin and the vernacular. It is a rupture with the ecclesiology of the priest at the Traditional Latin Mass in the 16th century for example.

Gloria TV is still using the Gruner-Vennari model of Catholicism.

A few years back I asked Fr. Reto Nay if he knew of anyone saved with the BOD, BOB and I.I, were there any physically visible cases for him ? I asked him this in a post on Gloria TV. He would not answer.

I asked him if he knew of any one saved outside the Church as referenced in LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc, who could be exceptions to the traditional interpretation of EENS. He would not answer.

I am presently not allowed to post on Gloria TV.ù

I am also not allowed to post on a sedevacantist forum  since it is unthinkable for them, how Pope Pius XII could have been wrong on the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and instead Fr. Leonard Feeney be correct.

When I ask sedevacantists Bishop Donald Sanborn, Fr. Benedict Hughese and John Salza ( non sedevacantist traditionalist)- all Lefebvrists- if there are physically visibly cases of the BOD etc, they will not answer.This is a rational question but the traditionalists and sedevacantists will not answer.

Since for all of them BOD, BOB and I.I are exceptions so they imply that there are physically visible cases for them to be exceptions.

Follow Tradition, go for the Latin Mass but do not use the false reasoning to interpret BOD, BOB and I.I and LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II.-Lionel Andrades