Erroneous Text of Conclusions Concerning Amoris Laetitia, Its Authority and Import on the Faithful of the Catholic Church

"Summary:
Question 1: Are the papally approved documents of Ecumenical Councils in general, and Vatican II in particular, Infallible? Yes.
Question 2: Do papal Pastoral Letters demand the assent of the laity? Yes.
Question 3: Does Amoris Laetitia teach definitively that there exist cases where person A with a valid marriage to person B can civilly divorce person B, and while person B yet lives, civilly marry person C, and be having sex with person C, and be determined in his own mind to continue having sex with person C, yet receive Holy Communion licitly? Yes.
Conclusion: The laity cannot say that the sacraments have been denied uniformly to those living in objective sin, however such reception should be private in order to harmonize this teaching of Pope Francis insofar as possible with that of Pope St. John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio, in which he warns against scandalizing the faithful.

Body:
Question 1: Are the papally approved documents of Ecumenical Councils in general, and Vatican II in particular, Infallible?

Yes. There are some who say that the explicitly dogmatic documents of Vatican II are not infallible. But this is not in keeping with the teaching of the Church's Infallibility in General. For how else can the Church exercise her infallibility but by the explicit dogmatic teaching of Ecumenical Councils? And how could Christ's promises to the disciples be fulfilled that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all the truth (John 14), and the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church (Matthew 16) if the bishops of the world assembled and approved by the Pope, declaring dogma to the Church, could err? Any other way lies madness and schism.

 The infallibility of dogma proposed by any ecumenical council (1) summoned by a reigning Pope, (2) presided over by a reigning Pope, and (3) approved by a reigning pope, must be admitted by anyone who believes in the Church's infallible teaching authority in any sense.

As the Catholic Encyclopedia says,

An ecumenical or general, as distinguished from a particular or provincial council, is an assembly of bishops which juridically represents the universal Church as hierarchically constituted by Christ; and, since the primacy of Peter and of his successor, the pope, is an essential feature in the hierarchical constitution of the Church, it follows that there can be no such thing as an ecumenical council independent of, or in opposition to, the pope. No body can perform a strictly corporate function validly without the consent and co-operation of its head. Hence:

• the right to summon an ecumenical council belongs properly to the pope alone, though by his express or presumed consent given ante or post factum, the summons may be issued, as in the case of most of the early councils, in the name of the civil authority. For ecumenicity in the adequate sense all the bishops of the world in communion with the Holy See should be summoned, but it is not required that all or even a majority should be present.

• As regards the conduct of the deliberations, the right of presidency, of course, belongs to the pope or his representative; while as regards the decisions arrived at unanimity is not required.

• Finally, papal approbation is required to give ecumenical value and authority to conciliardecrees, and this must be subsequent to conciliar action, unless the pope, by his personal presence and conscience, has already given his official ratification (for details see GENERAL COUNCILS).

2
That an ecumenical council which satisfies the conditions above stated is an organ of infallibility will not be denied by anyone who admits that the Church is endowed with infallible doctrinal authority. How, if not through such an organ, could infallible authority effectively express itself, unless indeed through the pope? If Christ promised to be present with even two or three of His disciples gathered together in His name (Matthew 18:20), a fortiori He will be present efficaciously in a representative assembly of His authorized teachers; and the Paraclete whom He promised will be present, so that whatever the council defines may be prefaced with the Apostolic formula, "it has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us." And this is the view which the councils held regarding their own authority and upon which the defender of orthodoxy insisted. The councils insisted on their definitions being accepted under pain of anathema, while St. Athanasius, for example, says that "the word of the Lord pronounced by the ecumenical synod of Nicaea stands for ever" (Ep. ad Afros, n. 2) and St. Leo the Great proves the unchangeable character of definitive conciliar teaching on the ground that God has irrevocably confirmed its truth "universae fraternitatis irretractabili firmavit assensu" (Ep. 120, 1).

Source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#II

Question 2: Do papal Papal Documents addressed to the laity demand the assent of the laity?

Yes. Having established its unquestionable infallibility, we may now appeal with sureness to The Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium Chapter III, paragraph 25, drafted at the Second Vatican Council, and promulgated by Pope Paul VI:

Bishops who teach in communion with the Roman Pontiff are to be revered by all as witnesses of divine and Catholic truth; the faithful, for their part, are obliged to submit to their bishops' decision, made in the name of Christ, in matters of faith and morals, and to adhere to it with a ready and respectful allegiance of mind. This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and sincere assent be given to decisions made by him, conformably with his manifest mind and intention, which is made known principally either by the character of the documents in question, or by the frequency with which a certain doctrine is proposed, or by the manner in which the doctrine is formulated. 

Source: http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/v3.html (Emphasis mine, not in original.)

Clearly then, as a Post-Synodal Exhortation addressed explicitly to the lay faithful (as well as the bishops, priests, deacons and consecrated) on love in the family, Amoris Laetitia must be given "sincere assent" by them all, unless it is contradicted by an infallible council, or until it is contradicted by a succeeding Pope while reigning, even though it is not itself infallible.

 Source: https://w2.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia_en.pdf (See Page 1.)

Question 3: Does Amoris Laetitia teach definitively that there exist cases where person A with a valid marriage to person B can civilly divorce person B, and while person B yet lives, civilly marry person C, and be having sex with person C, and be determined to continue having sex with person C, yet receive Holy Communion licitly?

Yes. This is the indisputable teaching of the postsynodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia:

Source: https://w2.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia_en.pdf

Link to the quoted portion of the Summa above.

The document clearly refers to those living in "irregular" situations and says in connection with them that moral laws cannot blindly be applied to them and that the sacraments can in certain cases due to forms of conditioning and mitigating factors be given to them.

Conclusion:
The laity cannot say that the sacraments have been denied uniformly to those living in objective sin, however such reception should be private in order to harmonize this teaching of Pope Francis insofar as possible with that of Pope St. John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio, in which he warns against scandalizing the faithful."