Fr.John Zuhlsdorf and Michael Voris remain politically correct

According to Fr.John Zuhlsdorf  the SSPX 's licit and valid Confession in the  Year of Mercy is only a privilege which could cease at the year end if there is no full canonical acceptance.

He means the SSPX has to compromise like him and Michael Voris and give up their Lefebvrist image.

For example Michael Voris projects himself as independent media and dissociates with the SSPX  and also in an about face  says every one does not need  to be a card carrying member of the Church. In other words, like Fr.Jonathan Morris whom he once criticized  for saying every one does not need to enter the Church, Michael is now saying the same thing.

With political correctness he is saying that being saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance  refer to explicit cases and not just possibilities known to God which will be followed with the baptism of water, since there are only Catholics in Heaven.

So he does not affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the hawks do not come swooping down on him.Recently Christine Niles kept the wolves away when she cited the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 on the Mic'd Up program on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.How can the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance be an exception to the dogma? Where were the known cases of the baptism of desire in 1949 or before? How can invisible cases be relevant to the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney? Yet she had to cite these cases...

At one time Michael affirmed extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Mother Angelica and supported the SSPX.The image has changed.

Similarly Fr.John Zuhlsdorf in the past made the distinction between the Confession of the SSPX being licit and valid  when he quoted John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter.Now he suggests that the validity of the SSPX confession depends on their being approved by the Vatican and the Vatican will only approve them if they intepret Vatican Council II with an irrationality and a break with the past ecclesiology which was licit and valid at one time.

Then recently Fr.Zuhlsdorf denied the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam  nulla salus.For him being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire is also explicit, as it is for Michael Voris.So these are not invisible but visible cases for both of them.

Again Fr.Zuhlsdorf remains politically correct and avoids another threat to his blog and career as a priest.
Where are the priests who will speak the truth on the salvation issue and be willing to live on the streets if need be?
 Fr.Zuhlsdorf like Michael Voris wants to support the Magsiterium and so he suggests that there are known exceptions  to extra ecclesiam nulla salus  in the present times.This is a break with the magisterium and ecclesiology  of the past.
They are supporting the contemporary  magisterium  which rebelled against the magisterium of the past.For instance, Lumen Gentium 16, Vatican Council II is clearly implicit and invisible for us but for both of them LG 16 is explicit and so Vatican Council II becomes a break with the Syllabus of Errors, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Athanasius Creed, the Nicene Creed...
They are no more interested in projecting the truth on the salvation issue  and 'trapping lies and falsehoods.'
-Lionel Andrades