What a sick, sad joke Catholic "changelessness" is! The author, like every other so-called "conservative" Catholic, obviously still wants to ignore the elephant in the room that led to all of this: the rampant rationalism and naturalism that led to the reduction of whole books of the Bible to "primitive mythology," of which historical criticism and evolutionism are the two prime examples.
I have read about many of the so-called "conservative" Catholic heroes (such as Sheen, Benedict XVI, JPII, etc.) and while they may have fulminated loudly about Freud and Nietzsche and other such, they never quite make it to Wellhausen and Darwin. In fact, Catholics/Orthodox now consider these two philosophies as dogmatically mandatory to prove they aren't "Protestant." Even as both philosophies were started by liberal Protestants!
Bellarmine's insistence that the sun revolves around the earth to protect the literal teaching of the Bible has been assigned to an Orwellian memory hole. Now it's "that's those Fundies; we've never had a problem with such-and-such." And while they haven't had a problem with it for a very very long time now, the idea that they've never had a problem with it is a d@mnable lie.
Catholics/Orthodox/Myophosites/Nestorians now actually seem to be in a race as to which can claim the most ancient opening to evolution and higher criticism (or to the current mania that "there's nothing wrong with us"). Entire swaths of history have been eliminated to "prove" that they were always progressive and futuristic and open to naturalistic theories. Now even the so-called "conservatives," even the ones who want to restore the high middle ages, are Darwinists and higher critics. They want the middle ages with evolution.
This being the case, the claim of current "conservative" Catholics that their church has been the most "reactionary" and resistant to change of all other forces in the world is simply a sad, sick joke. They may have masses of simple peasants among their members, but all their spokesmen are intellectuals who hate and detest American-style Fundamentalist Protestantism over all other things . . . including abortion and homosexuality.
And as for being "anti-Protestant," I note that this "anti-Protestantism" never seems to apply to liberal Protestants. Only Fundamentalists are criticized for "rejecting the ancient oral interpretive tradition." As if liberal Protestants didn't do the same thing! In fact, liturgicals and liberal Protestants come together in ecumenism primarily to attack "Protestant Fundamentalism."
And it is Fundamentalist Protestants, btw, who are more opposed to "ecumenism" than any other movement in chrstendom (except maybe the J-- Witnesses). If the ancient churches are so "changeless" and conservative, why have they been involved in ecumania almost from the beginning? And why to they attack Fundamentalists for believing that there can only be one true religion? After all, the ancient churches certainly don't think membership in any of them is required, which is why they engage in absolutely no missionary activity whatsoever and depend on endogamous sexual reproduction to survive(not to mention their loud attacks on FP's precisely for being missionary).
The "indefectable church" has defected. That is obvious for anyone with eyes to see. The thing is, all the so-called "conservatives," who want to be highly intellectual reactionaries while regarding simple people as hateful and too stupid to even be proselytized, are all part of the problem. And it begins with the two philosophies neither of them wants to jettison. Because they can't bring themselves to have anything in common with "those stupid people."
All the other ancient churches will fall as well, just like dominoes. They've all been very liberal for a long time. And they all absolutely refuse to get rid of the two root causes of "modernism" in their religion.
What a sad, sick joke your endless rants are!