[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

Ahhhh. I misunderstood. However, there is more to the Faith than simply the Nicene Creed. But it's not worth splitting hairs over. The Catholic faith has evolved over a long period of time, be it with respect to investiture, indulgences, ritual, etc. A medieval Catholic wouldn't be able to preside over a modern Mass, and would probably be shocked by the teachings out of Rome today (not that that is a bad thing).

Heck, a Protestant could claim to be following the "creed" established in the New Testament (as many more fundamentalist sects do), which has the longest pedigree of any Church document. Surely you wouldn't argue that the Church hasn't changed since 383, would you?

[Romulus]

When you say that doctrine "evolves" you are right only in the literal sense that truths latent in the original deposit of faith become explicit. But it is incorrect if you intend "evolution" to mean linear change or progress.

Changes in ritual and discipline surely have altered the "look and feel" of the institutional Church, but these superficial adaptations have no bearing on the ecclesial life-in-Christ that the Church has always offered. To read Augustine or the canon of Hipolytus or even the Didache is to see vivid accounts of substantially the same liturgies the Catholics offer today. The ancient (and even mediaeval) Christians, who were quite familiar with the concept of multiple Western rites, would have no difficulty whatever in perceiving an orthodox Novus Ordo (English) Mass as thoroughly Catholic.

As you say, "it's not worth splitting hairs over." Soothly!