"Responding faithfully to the trans-temporal magisterium of the Church (and not just to the magisterium of one's own time) requires holding in view two other principals of interpretation. First, 'the minor gives way to the major.' Second, the 'one gives way to the many.'.. Thus, Amoris Laetitia cannot supersede the encyclical Veritatis Splendor

nsidious means to proceed "in a gradual, subtle way, but with very harmful effects." (Oxford Dictionary)

Is Pope Francis insidious in bringing about Communions to the those in adulterous "second marriages" through Amoris Laetitia?

The Pope's personally chosen Special Secretary for the synods on marriage and family Archbishop Bruno Forte revealed Francis's "gradual, subtle way" of bringing about adulterous Communions to the website Zonalcale.it:

"If we speak explicitly about communion for the divorced and remarried." Archbishop Forte, reporting on a joke of Pope Francis, "you do not know what a terrible mess we will make. So we won't speak plainly, do it in a way that the premises are there, then I will draw out the conclusions." (Zonalcale.it, May, 3 2016)

Papal biographer and Crux editor Austen Ivereigh and all of Francis's inner circle as well as loyal supporters know that Forte spilled the beans on the Pope's purpose for the synods and Amoris Laetitia.

It is a given that they have to pretend that Forte didn't reveal Francis's insidiousness.

The next step for persons that are not bumblers is to invent a convincing narrative or spin that Catholics could halfway buy.

Instead Francis supporter Ivereigh claims Stephen Walford's article for the Vatican Insider is "irrefutable." (Vatican Insider, "The Magisterium of Pope Francis: His Predecessors Come to His Defence" February 2, 2017)

Walford's central argument is that Amoris Laetitia is a case of papal ordinary magisterium and to deny it's authority is to "call into question the teaching authority of previous popes and the entire fabric of Catholicism."

He claims three great Church theologians "ruled out" that a Pope can teach heresy.

His claim that the great Fr. Francisco Suarez agreed with his thesis is worst than sloppy writing. It is the opposite of the truth.

Suarez taught "it is a given that a pope could be a formal heretic." (Crisis, "Can a Pope be a Heretic?," March 4, 2015)

Scholar James Schall, S.J. said:

"Bellarmine and Suarez considered a de facto possibility of an heretical pope. They granted that the Church would have to depose him if he did not self-declare his heresy." (The Catholic Thing, "On Heretical Popes," November 11, 2014)

Walford said St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Alphonsus Liguori agreed with him.

As Schall's quote shows Bellarmine taught that the possibility of heretical popes could be piously believed despite what the saint personally believed.

As with Bellarmine, Liguori personally believed that popes could not be heretics, but like the former he did not disallow Catholics to believe in the possibility of heretical popes.

Villanova University theologian Jessica Murdoch explains magisterium authority for Walford:

"Responding faithfully to the trans-temporal magisterium of the Church (and not just to the magisterium of one's own time) requires holding in view two other principals of interpretation. First, 'the minor gives way to the major.' Second, the 'one gives way to the many.'.. Thus, Amoris Laetitia cannot supersede the encyclical Veritatis Splendor... One must privilege the harmony of the many pontificates in union with each other, and their unanimity with the Fathers and Doctors of the Church over the one seemingly dissonant voice." (First Things, "Creeping Infallibility," 9-27-16)

The article shows that to disbelieve papal teachings that are dissonant from every single magisterium teaching in the history of the Church is the only way not to "call into question the teaching authority of previous popes and the entire fabric of Catholicism."

Resisting such dissonant papal teachings, as Amoris Laetitia, is the only way not to bring about "dissolution, confusion, and death" into the Church.

In the same article, Murdoch said:

"By contrast, doctrinal evolution in which a new teaching sublates and eliminates the earlier teaching in a quasi-Hegelian fashion breeds dissolution, confusion, and death."