“Christopher Wells is a doctoral candidate in theology at the University of Notre Dame” - not an Anglican university I take it?

Suggesting that we respect the current rubbish coming out of the CDF with its “ecclesial communities” is rather like suggesting that we should thank and shake hands with someone who proposes to give us a good caning.  So far the Vatican has apologised to Jewry and the German Protestant Church for the offense they have caused but I am not going to hold my breath for an apology to the Anglican Church, and it is a church.

I also note that the CDF document came out under the aegis of Cardinal Levada, who set new standards for the pastoral care of children while an archbishop in the US Roman Catholic Church, a glass house if ever there was one.

pageantmaster,
I’m not clear, but you may be asking about Christopher’s own denominational allegiances?  If so (if not, then “never mind”), you may not have name recognition, but for those who were enmeshed in the “Special Committee” business at General Convention 2006, Christopher’s name is one of those.
Here is an old link to another essay of his

Rob Eaton+
Thank you for kindly linking that essay which I read and indeed it does make things much clearer.

In it the argument is that the Church is wounded through division as I read it and as such is somewhat at odds with the CDF document which does not recognise the reformed protestants as part of that Church, divided or not, as they define it.  We of course do not accept that the Vatican has the right to write the dictionary or to exclude us, whether from the Church or from heaven.  We have our saviour to thank for that.

Essays such as this bring me back to the unanswered questions: who raised the questions the CDF document answers? To whom is the document addressed?

An ancillary question: who has been made uncomfortable by the document? Consider the calm disagreement of Dr. Mohler against the rage in comment #1 above.

Given the status of TEC and of the Anglican Communion right now, and their ongoing declarations of “Catholicity,”  I find any criticism of the Holy See’s statements (or the CDF’s) to be silly, at the best.  With love, this blog proves the point every day.

Rage - no, irritation - yes, silly - on occasion.  I have joined the growing list of those who are irritated - and no, I have no intention of bending over and assuming the position.  If these pallium-in-mouth statements continue people will continue to be irritated.  The latest to be irritated is the Orthodox leader in Australia I read from the ‘Tablet’.

A great pity when it clouds so much that is valuable and worthwhile in the RC Church’s teaching and witness.

#4 who is made uncomfortable?  Probably those who care more about relationships with the RC Church and whose outlook towards Rome starts from a rather more open position and with greater willingness for dialogue than Dr. Mohler’s?  To be irritated you have to care.  Just a thought.