He is against same-sex marriage but for some sort of blessing of same-sex relationships so long as that is not confused for holy matrimony. His statement is not confusing at all, you just don't seem to want to acknowledge what he is saying.
Partially true. Rome declared the 1550 and 1552 Ordinals do be deficient, i.e. any priest consecrated by the reformed Ordinals was not considered of as having valid ordination.
Are you referring to the 1896 declaration? It took 240 years, so I don't believe that one was motivated by any sense of honesty or piety. Rome saw the expansion of the British Empire and yet again had to attack our Catholicity. The attacks prior to 1896 were not useful, so the Papacy quietly dropped them for a couple of centuries. At any rate, I have ceased to care what Rome pronounces. So pernicious and faithless a Communion need have no attention or heed paid it.
This question of valid orders and valid churches brings up an interesting point: If a church is engaged in persecution and murder of other Christians in the name of Christ, is that church a valid church at the time it is doing those things? I say no.
I know what he is saying -- and it is not affirming of orthodoxy in this regard. Anyone who can say that same-sex unions can be vehicles of grace (!) has left the faith.
No this did not occur in 1896, it was held in the 16th century. Our Ordinal doesn't make Roman priests, they have rightly acknowledged this as we have.
If that's the case, Rome is an invalid Church to the power of ten. Aside from Jesuit spies and the unfortunate killings of Fisher & More (along with Protestants like Tyndale), England does not measure up to the cruel massacres perpetrated & encouraged by Rome. Despite its titanic evil, people still look to 16th-c. Romanism for guidance as to validity of Orders! It's astonishing to me. Refusing to recognize a priest, bishop, or even a whole church because they are immoral is Donatism. How far can God recognize their apostolic succession if they do not teach the apostolic doctrine, however? There must be a dividing line somewhere.
No it isn't. Some Christians have come to the conclusion that same-sex activity is not sinful. I don't accept that interpretation but that doesn't make them un-Christian. Denying that Jesus is Lord makes you un-Christian.
Just when did this happen? Not that I would worry, luckily, we do not have to await Rome's approval! In the 1930s several of the Orthodox Communions, Constantinople,Rumania amongst others, acknowleged our Orders, Rome's own position is quite precarius after Trent! Our orders depend on the Apostolic Succession in both Revelation and Orders. Luckily most Anglicans fit the shoe! But Rome's position is questionable, it is a sect, albeit a Catholic one, and is a major cause of schism within the Catholic Church!
The Orthodox churches never "recognized" Anglican orders, their theology doesn't allow that. They said that if the whole Anglican Church joined the Orthodox Church then it might be possible to accept their priests as is. The problem was that the Orthodox only interacted with Anglo-Catholics, when they learned that Anglo-Catholicism was not true Anglicanism and in fact an aberration of Anglicanism they revoked any approval of our orders. We simply don't make Papist or Eastern priests, it's not biblical, it's not catholic.
Again, you talk about Churches, in the plural. Again I repeat there's only one Church and as it is the Body of Christ here on earth, ' 'it cannot engage in persecution and murder of other Christians in the name of Christ,' though its members might well do so! We have to realise that the ,'Church,' is some kind of a refuge for sinners of all kinds!
Hackney, Rubbish! It happened in the 1930s, with the caveat , 'as far as we understand their words.' Or some such! It can all be found on Project Canterbury! Even if I were wrong, which I'm not! We need only to follow the catholic faith, which we do. What they have said and quite recently is that Anglican attitudes to Womens Orders and other modern monstrosities casts doubts in modern days.
Of course, all of the documents are available on Project Canterbury. We are upholding the catholic faith by NOT making Romish priests.
Concluding that same-sex activity is not sinful makes them unorthodox. Whether it makes them unChristian or not is something that I am content to leave to God. I can only say this: I could not support Duncan Gray, knowing what he believes about same-sex unions. Saying that homosexual sex is a vehicle of grace is approaching blasphemy.
Of course, all of the documents are available on Project Canterbury. We are upholding the catholic faith by NOT making Romish priests. If you mean were not making massing priests in the 16th, Century style i.e. 'Masses,' in the plural, if we stretch things far enough, you are right, but Roman Priests are able to join Anglican congregations or indeed Anglican communions without being reordained!
Not that it particularly matters what Rome thinks, but the above statement is muddied at best. If you mean the 1892 declaration, that's one thing. But if you mean during the 16th century, there was no declaration whatsoever, against Anglican orders. That's precisely why the 1892 declaration was needed. In the 16th century, the only declaration made was, at the accession of Queen Mary, that the English church was not in a state of apostasy, all 'sins' of the English church were forgiven, and all ordinations performed under Edward VI were valid. In this way, Rome's 16th century and 19th century declarations contradict each other. Making priests which would be recognized by Rome does not make ours Roman priests. That's a non sequitur. Rome has shown itself to be quite flexible over the centuries, and was often not a stickler for rules, when it suited its convenience. For example the Anglican Ordinariate allowed priests to be married while in the Roman church; likewise after Edward, they didn't care about presence or absence of sacrificial language under the Edwardian Ordinal, in order to accept those priests into the Roman church.
No ordination under either the 1550 or 1552 Ordinal has ever been accepted as valid by Rome. Look into it. Priests ordained under the 1550 ordinal were re-ordained during the reign of Mary.
Hackney! You might like to read, The Marion Reaction in relation to the English Clergy. Walter Howard Frere. SPCK. 1896. Bishop of Truro.