It doesn’t seem like the OP has participated in this thread for some days now, but oh well I’ll add my 2 cents worth anyway.
It’s wrongheaded to look at Orthodox liturgical and spiritual tradition and say that it has not changed.
This is a huge misunderstanding I see with many people first becoming acquainted with Orthodoxy. What happens is this: They discover the beautiful Tradition of the East, and they see it as something culturally very different from America, or the West in general, and there is this impression that Orthodoxy is ancient and, therefore, co-equal to “Apostolic Christianity.”
And indeed, Eastern Orthodoxy is rooted in the ancient, apostolic church.
But the liturgical, spiritual, artistic, and culture traditions of the Orthodox Church are VERY much due to development and change, especially in the first millenium. Most of the embellishments people find beautiful in Orthodoxy are actually not INTRINSIC to original Christianity, but instead reflect development in liturgy from fourth century on — Byzantine influence, etc.
Take icons, for example. Byzantine icons look different, mysterious, and very different from Western Christianity. But that doesn’t mean they are essential to the original Church. No, icons developed over time, especially in their later Byzantine style.
So please don’t confuse Byzantine Christianity with “ancient Christianity.”
Liturgy has always had a substantial center, but it has ALWAYS developed in reference to different cultures. The reason why Eastern Orthodoxy doesn’t seem this way is, bluntly, it is stuck in the first millennium. I don’t mean this in a negative sense at all. But be careful to remember that there is no reason why Christian liturgy should have to look like the 7th century in every single respect (for example).