So, the Common Cause Partnership is official. Let the exodus begin.
As Father Jake notes, there are no signatories noted or announced. A mere two clicks away, one can find the Dioceses that are Network affiliates. It seems that Fort Worth, Pittsburgh, Quincy and San Joaquin are likely a part of the breakaway (but who can really tell for sure?), which means that Albany, Central Florida, Dallas, Rio Grande, South Carolina and Springfield have a serious decision to make. Thinking Anglicans notes that the following Episcopal bishops were at the meeting: Keith Ackerman (Quincy), James Adams (Western Kansas), Fitz Allison (formerly of South Carolina), Peter Beckwith (Springfield), David Bena (formerly of Albany), Alex Dickson (formerly of West Tennessee), Andrew Fairfield (formerly of North Dakota), John Howe (Central Florida), Jack Iker (Fort Worth), William Love (Albany), Donald Parsons (formerly of Quincy), Henry Scriven (assistant, Pittsburgh) and William Wantland (formerly of Eau Claire). And Duncan himself, of course.
All of which boils down to seven current diocesan bishops, with Western Kansas and Central Florida thrown into the mix that are not currently listed as a Network affiliated dioceses. It's quite possible that some of these attendees were merely observers, or at least trying to contrast what was happening in Pittsburgh with the House of Bishops meeting days before. But it would behoove all of them to clearly state their intentions in the very near future.
At this point, are you in, or are you out? Affiliation with the Network is, as of this moment, totally incompatible with continuing membership in the Episcopal Church, so it's make your mind up time. Was Mark Lawrence in Pittsburgh? What are his intentions for South Carolina? It seems like these would be good things to know before Standing Committees vote on assenting or not to his election as bishop of that diocese.
In the meantime, there are plenty of other issues to deal with. Allowing Diocese to take property they have no right to should not be allowed to happen (and really, this whole "no lawsuit" business is just stupid. There's no such thing as squatter's rights, which is the nearest principle these people can claim. If they try to take something which is not theirs, then the law is the only reasonable recourse we have.) However, it would be interesting to pursue selling the properties to the renegades, even at a discount, in order to use the funds for rebuilding the Diocese in new locations (not all the properties, mind you, just some where it makes sense, and if the price was reasonable.)
There will be some Episcopal congregations left standing in these abandoned dioceses, for instance, the Diocese of Pittsburgh. I would think a sister relationship between parishes in more stable places would be of some help. Congregations isolated in network leaning, but not secessionist Diocese are a different matter. What can we expect if say, Central Florida doesn't align with the CCP, but chooses to remain in the Episcopal Church? Will "liberal" parishes be treated equitably? This is one area where alternative oversight has been barely visible.
Overall, it's a relief that the other shoe has finally dropped and we know what we're dealing with (well, if they'd publish names, etc.) and we can begin to move on.