All encyclicals, before this pope, were written so that he could say "We teach," very much like Peter himself speaking for all the Apostles. Francis did not include the teaching authority in Amoris. He had his people send out questionnaires and he conferred with a few like-minded bishops. That is contrary to how the Magisterium works.
An encyclical is meant to present to the Catholic Church the teaching of all the bishops. In this one he picked a few friends and is trying to pawn it off as "The Official Teaching of the Roman Catholic Church."
Many people know better than that and that is why he is getting the blowback and deservedly so.
I was referring to what are formally titled an encyclicals, while Amoris Laetitia is formally titled and usually referred to as a "Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation," such as as by your bishops. Granted, the difference is imprecise, since an encyclical originally referred to a circular letter passed around to all the churches of a certain area, but came to " almost exclusively refer to certain papal documents which differ in their technical form from the ordinary style of either Bulls or Briefs." (Catholic Encyclopedia > Encyclical)
Which differences are technical (http://www.ewtn.com/HolySee/Pontiff/categories.asp#exhortation), and what magisterial level a teaching falls under, and thus which level of assent is required of Catholics, are typically matters of dispute.
All encyclicals, before this pope, were written so that he could say "We teach," very much like Peter himself speaking for all the Apostles. Francis did not include the teaching authority in Amoris. He had his people send out questionnaires and he conferred with a few like-minded bishops. That is contrary to how the Magisterium works.
An encyclical is meant to present to the Catholic Church the teaching of all the bishops. In this one he picked a few friends and is trying to pawn it off as "The Official Teaching of the Roman Catholic Church."
Then perhaps the term "Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation," distinguishes it from an encyclical, yet it is obvious that you reject this document as being worthy of the title "Apostolic Exhortation" as well, while your bishops overall applaud it as in affirming,
Pope Francis has given us a tremendous gift in Amoris Laetitia. May our ongoing reception of it continue to be an opportunity for the whole Church and society to renew their dedication to protect, promote, and strengthen marriages and families. - http://www.usccb.org/news/2016/16-127.cfm
Francis does use "we" in this letter, and while may be not be "speaking for all the Apostles" (nor did so many other popes, inclusively) but it seems like he is speaking for a majority, which is what elected him. And papal authority reserves to itself the supreme authority to provide the correct understanding or church teaching, as do the bishops with the pope, as V2 exampled (perhaps you publicly dissent in part from that as well).
And i think that your criteria upon which you justify your public dissent is subject to dispute, with both sides being able to invoke past teaching to support them.
Francis did not write the Amoris with the teaching authority of the Church, the Magisterium, therefore it is his own opinion and not worthy of assent by the people.
While Pope Francis did say "that everything in his post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia was agreed by a majority of the Synod fathers," (http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/12/07/pope-francis-everything-in-amoris-laetitia-was-supported-by-the-synod), yet rather than the pope being unable to exercise the magisterial teaching authority of the Church apart from the bishops, it is the bishops, singly or collectively, who have no authority apart from papal sanction, and who "can himself, independent of the bishops, exercise the supreme Magisterium." - Ralph M. McInerny. What went wrong with VATICAN II. (Sophia Institute Press, 1998; https://www.ewtn.com/library/theology/sipvat2.htm).
I know the SSPV and SSPX type have their side to justify them essentially acting like us in dissenting from what is taught by Rome based upon our understanding of our respective supreme authorative sources (and i even think they are correct that modern RC teaching contradicts some of her past, though both stand in contrast with the NT church ) but i do not see room for their dissent in the light of much past teaching.
Epistola Tua: To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment , and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation.
Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor.... Similarly, it is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed.
On this point what must be remembered is that in the government of the Church, except for the essential duties imposed on all Pontiffs by their apostolic office, each of them can adopt the attitude which he judges best according to times and circumstances. Of this he alone is the judge. It is true that for this he has not only special lights, but still more the knowledge of the needs and conditions of the whole of Christendom, for which, it is fitting, his apostolic care must provide. - Epistola Tua (1885), Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII; http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage_print.asp?number=403215&language=en
"It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors ." - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906.
Nor can we pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that "without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church's general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals. " But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church. (Quanta Cura. Encyclical of Pope Pius IX promulgated on December 8, 1864; http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanta.htm)
20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent... if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians. - PIUS XII, HUMANI GENERI, August 1950; http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html
The authority (of papal encyclicals) is undoubtedly great". It is, in a sense, sovereign. It is the teaching of the supreme pastor and teacher of the Church. Hence the faithful have a strict obligation to receive this teaching with an infinite respect. A man must not be content simply not to contradict it openly and in a more or less scandalous fashion. An internal mental assent is demanded. It should be received as the teaching sovereignly authorized within the Church." - Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, esteemed Catholic theologian and professor of fundamental dogmatic theology at the Catholic University of America, who served as a peritus for Cardinal Ottaviani at the Second Vatican Council. Extract from the American Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. CXXI, August, 1949; http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/docauthority.htm
For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty.
Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord. - CASTI CONNUBII, ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI; https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19301231_casti-connubii.html
...when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed ; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey – that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority ; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.
The Bishops form the most sacred part of the Church, that which instructs and governs men by divine right; and so he who resists them and stubbornly refuses to obey their word places himself outside the Church [cf. Matt. 18:18]. But obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces. - (Pope Saint Pius X, Allocution Vi ringrazio to priests on the 50th anniversary of the Apostolic Union, November 18, 1912, as found at http://www.christorchaos.com/?q=content/choosing-ignore-pope-leo-xiii-and-pope-saint-pius-x
to scrutinize the actions of a bishop, to criticize them, does not belong to individual Catholics, but concerns only those who, in the sacred hierarchy, have a superior power; above all, it concerns the Supreme Pontiff, for it is to him that Christ confided the care of feeding not only all the lambs, but even the sheep [cf. John 21:17]. - Est Sane Molestum (1888) Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII; http://www.novusordowatch.org/est-sane-molestum-leo-xiii.htm
In addition, as concerns social teaching, The "Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church" (2005) states:
80. In the Church’s social doctrine the Magisterium is at work in all its various components and expressions. … Insofar as it is part of the Church’s moral teaching, the Church’s social doctrine has the same dignity and authority as her moral teaching. It is authentic Magisterium, which obligates the faithful to adhere to it . - http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html
And it is quite well evidenced that the popes last (titled) encyclical (http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html) is intended to teach what the Church's moral teaching demands as regards ecology and economy. (172 references in this encyclical cite church teaching and prelates for support).
Thus we either have Trad. RCs contradicting past papal teaching in asserting the modern papal and magisterial teaching contradicts the past, or Rome's interpretation of herself is to be trusted.