TRC "On Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Reformed Catholicity"

I've wanted to engage this document for a little while now. It's a statement from the session of Trinity Reformed Church, Moscow, Idaho, on Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. I must begin by saying that I don't fully endorse it. I generally appreciate the statement, but I also have some important concerns about it. Here are the aspects of the statement I find laudable:

1. The first two sections of this statement are refreshing in the simultaneous commitment the writers show toward affirming the ancient and contemporary ecumenical Church on the one hand and to maintaining fidelity to the distinctives of the Reformed tradition on the other.
2. Nowhere else among conservative Reformed folks will you find Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox so cheerfully welcomed to the Lord's Table. An open declaration of welcome to table fellowship for RCC and EO members implies that Trinity views their churches as possessing fundamental ecclesiological validity.
3. There's a frank (perhaps a little too sharp) discussion of the confessional commitments and core disagreements that separate Reformed Protestantism from Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.
4. The bits about people joining communions that excommunicate their Protestant brothers and sisters being a contradiction of their search for catholicity and the goal of church unity for these folks coming at the expense of further divisions in the body of Christ reflect my basic rationale for remaining Protestant.
5. This statement includes a good summary of the points on which "protesting catholics" stake their claim to and express their confidence in their true membership in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

Now here's my concerns:

1. Trinity punts to the hostile forces in the conservative Reformed denominations that have arrayed themselves against her and her sister churches in the Confederation of Reformed Evangelicals. It seems that the favored defense mechanism for Presbyterians under fire for being too sacramental or too history-conscious is still, "Oh, no! We're not Catholic. We will convince you that we're okay by showing you just how not Catholic we are. Oh, those horrible papists!" Of course these guys and others in their camp are not self-consciously trying to synthesize Calvinism with Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, but, so what if their "reformational progress" incidentally brings them liturgically closer to Rome and Constantinople? Why are you suddenly so ashamed of what you share with these traditions when you desire so strongly to be considered part of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church? Backbone, gentleman. Show some backbone!
2. I happen to agree with the sentiments that the unity of the body of Christ does not necessarily depend on "institutional forms, church polity, or bureaucratic decisions," and that "abstract considerations of church polity, apostolic succession, or institutional unity do not rise to the level of weightier matters of the law," but, considering the fact that, as this statement also concurs, divisions in the body of Christ are "most grievous to the calling of the Church," should not the growth of the body of Christ in love and unity ultimately lead us to bring our centuries-old schisms to an official, institutional end?
3. Maybe I'm nitpicking, but I think the tone of the "liturgical idolatry" paragraph is a bit too accusatory. Yes, we all know what we all believe about these issues, but I do not believe this statement is the appropriate place to issue yet another stern rebuke to our Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters over these matters, especially if we insist that in spite of these differences, they are our fellow Christians. Frankness and love demands the discussion, but let's not be so danged sanctimonious and judgmental about it.
4. Humility, fellas. Humility.
5. Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox certainly do not feel that questions of apostolic succession and institutional unity are peripheral to questions of ecclesiological validity. The discussion must be had and claims researched and debated.