CathInfo.com

Here's the subtlety of Amoris Laetitia.  It's not so much about approving objectively the reception of Holy Communion when not in a state of grace.  It's about claiming that one can be in a state of grace even if one is aware that what one is doing is objectively a grave sin.

It's about making morality SUBJECTIVE.  So, for example, Bergoglio claims that people can be subjectively in good conscience even if they're in a state where they're objectively committing sin.  I can be divorced and remarried but if I'm in good conscience about it (after my own discernment) that trumps the objective external forum reality of the fact that I am living in sin.

So Bergoglio's predecessors subjectivized faith and doctrine.  Now Bergoglio finishes the job by subjectivizing morality.

Obviously there's a subjective element to conscience and to degree of guilt and culpability in sin.  But this subjective element does not trump and cannot override the objective fact that one is committing a sin.

Someone leaves a thousand dollars on the table.  I pick it up thinking that it's mine (not looking at the amount) and take it home.  Did I commit a sin?  No, because subjectively I did not realize it was a sin.  But the minute I discover my error, if I persist in keeping it, then it becomes a sin subjectively as well.  So believing that I'm not sinning in divorcing and remarrying doesn't fly because the Church tells you otherwise ... just as someone informed me that the money I had was not mine.  At that point it's no longer possible for me to persist in that state without subjective sin as well.  But Begoglio thinks you can.  He's perverted all of moral theology with this.

This kind of thinking has long been applied in the realm of morality particularly to solitary sins of impurity.  Because the person is perhaps to some degree habituated to (or even addicted to) the sin, a lot of Novus Ordo moralists would say that the solitary sin of impurity would not be a mortal sin.  Is it hypothetically possible that under some circuмstances, in the internal forum, this sin might not be a mortal sin?  Perhaps.  Nevertheless, since only God can discern degree of guilt in the internal forum, in the external forum people must consider it a mortal sin and confess it as such and work to avoid it as if it were such.  But for Bergoglio the individual can, together with his spiritual director, discern whether or not the person is subjectively committing mortal sin in the internal forum and then apply that to their behavior in the external forum, i.e. receive communion.  By analogy with the solitary sin I mentioned earlier, this would mean the person, after having discerned it not a mortal sin, would be able to receive Communion before confessing it and would not actually be bound to confess it at all ... since it's been deemed not a mortal sin.

Three views of AL on the internet, but the most lengthy is that of "Brother Diamond."

Why should a sedevacantist care about this latest turn of events (which comes as no surprise) when sedevacantists believe that there IS NO MAGISTERUIM? Since they believe it's a completely false church and false pope, then why should they care about what they believe to be a false magisterium?

Brother Dimond's has the most lengthy view because he wants to warn people who are under the misapprehension that the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church. Sedevacantists believe that the post-Vatican II magisterium is not the magisterium of the Catholic Church. But they have to care as many of them were once either fully Novus Ordo or with R&R, and they feel it is their duty to inform others who are still stuck in those places. The Dimond brothers once attended SSPX chapels. Fr Morrison of Traditio once believed that the 1962 Missal was OK, but he doesn't any more.
Do the R&R factions care? Why are they quiet?