Footnote #351 does change discipline. Why will you not acknowledge the elephant in the room?
" 351 In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, "I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord's mercy" (Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium [24 November 2013], 44: AAS 105 [2013], 1038). I would also point out that the Eucharist "is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak" (ibid., 47: 1039).
This footnote does not say one word about admitting divorced and remarried Catholics to Holy Communion without repentance for their sin of adultery, and amendment of life.
What it actually says --- the words, ebb tide, the words ---is that Confession and Communion are available "in certain cases."
In what cases? It doesn't say. But we know from previous Papal teachings, from the Catechism, and from Canon Law that Confession is available if the couple now living in civil-marriage adultery are willing to either separate entirely, or renounce their sexual relationship and live together in continence.
So that would be "a certain case."
Another "certain case" could be if one of the parties is receiving the Last Rites, and wishes to confess and receive Communion. If the person repents of their sin, and especially since it is unlikely they are ever going to resume adulterous relations again, this person could receive "the help of the Sacraments."
Likewise if the couple simply don't have sexual relations anymore, for whatever reason (age, health conditions or whatever) and one of the partners repents of the sin and intends no further sin of this sort --- then yes, the Sacraments could help.
Is that what the Pope had in mind? Who knows? But in any case, the footnote CAN be interpreted in a solid and orthodox fashion, and thus MUST be interpreted so.
It's a devilish vague footnote, a strawman footnote, a devious, elided, wink-wink of a footnote--- don't think I didn't notice that --- but it does not authorize any general relaxation of the norm, or even indicate any specific exceptions, that a person in mortal sin must repent, confess, be absolved and intend to amend their life, before being admitted to Holy Communion.
I repeat a point I have made many times before: the fault is not in formal heresy (that wasn't done), or even in the official abrogating abrogation of a single sentence of the Catechism or of Canon Law (that wasn't done either), but in injecting this maddening ambiguity and evasion into the texts.
That's where the fault is: and of course, we have to fight it.
OK. Have you contacted your bishop and asked for a clarification? How is your diocese going to handle it?