Stand Firm has posted them
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/4741/
The Theological Statement was just voted on, accepted unanimously by all dioceses present:
Albany, Central Florida, Dallas, Fort Worth, Pittsburgh, Quincy, RioGrande, San Joaquin, Springfield
and the Convocations:
Mid-Atlantic, Mid Continental, NorthEast, SouthEast, Western, FiFNA
and the Anglican Global Mission Partnership
— South Carolina is not present.
— Pittsburgh noted a reservation on their vote to accept the Theological Statement re: the issue of women’s ordination.
There is also more on the ACN website, Common Cause page.
http://www.acn-us.org/common-cause-partners/
It lists the Common Cause Partners, and also lists the 4 Covenant Declarations that are referred to in the Common Cause Articles that are now being
discussed.
============
Update:
The Common Cause partnership articles are NOT being voted on today. The discussion just completed was to give people a chance to raise questions and suggest proposed revisions. It is this elf’s understanding that these articles will be voted on tomorrow afternoon.
I thought the “reservation” came from Dallas, and I think perhaps San Jose???
Gloria
That’s San Joaquin. And me born and raised in CA..
Shame
Gloria
——–
[i]Grannie Gloria, it is very definitely Pittsburgh that raised the question. Peter Frank, diocesan Communications Director for P’burgh who is in attendance at the Council meeting just posted a related comment on SF. http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/4730/#87614%5B/i%5D
“South Carolina is not present” They are a bit distracted by other issues right now. Not much doubt where their sympathies are, however.
I pray to God that this passes! Praise God if it does!
I’m having trouble accessing articles and comments on Stand Firm, even though the main page comes up with no problem. Is it just me, or is there a problem with the site?
Anyway, as long as I can’t comment over there, let me say over here that anyone reading the plain meaning of those documents, which condemn “innovation,” certainly ought to realize what that implies for women’s “ordination.”
My only problems with them are a) the excessively guarded language concerning the Seventh Council, and b) the unfortunate use of the word “proved” in regards to doctrine and Scripture; the phrase, lifted from the 39 Articles, clearly means “proved” in the sense of “tried” or “tested” (as the Latin text of the Articles makes clear), not “proved” as most people use the term today.
However, taken as a whole, these documents are well worth acceptance.
This is not a party to which I am invited, so it’s not really my place to comment on the documents presented. But I can’t resist one tiny niggle, because it’s one of my pet peeves:
What they mean to say is that the name shall be the Common Cause Partnership. Saying the name of their organization is called the Common Cause Partnership is to say that that is the name of the name of the organization.
The White Knight had a similar conversation with Alice, although their context was a bit more whimsical than this.
I also cannot read the StandFirm postings (a Fatal Error happens). I would appreciate someone’s summarizing the item, and what Pittsburgh’s problem with it is.
Katherine, you and I seem to be getting the same ‘fatal error’ (don’t you just love computerese?). I hope someone alerts Standfirm soon.
Katherine, you can read the Theological Statement that was voted on yesterday at the Network website:
http://www.acn-us.org/common-cause-partners/
I’m sure the Common Cause partnership articles must be somewhere besides Stand Firm as well, but I don’t have a link handy.
I can’t recall specifically what language in the Theological Statement Pittsburgh objected to. There may be a document today which summarizes the comments and reservations raised in yesterday’s discussion before the vote was taken.
Thank you, Matt+. I consider this a positive step. Unless miracles occur at the HOB meeting in September (and I do not expect miracles there) it is time to step apart from TEC. Prayer is needed for this upcoming debate.