"Liturgical evolution is one thing, such as the development in the differences between the Greek and Slavic liturgies that came about over the last 1000 years, but a significant and fundamental alteration to the Liturgy (e.g. western rite, cathedral rite, etc.) is not acceptable, for that is not an organic development of culture, but rather a revolutionary movement to alter the fundementals of Christian Praxis to be consonant with our own nationalistc biases."
So a "fundamental alteration" would have been the western right and the cathedral right, etc? IF that is true then we should stick with a "traditional" liturgy because it is not "an organic development of culture"? Wouldn't you say that today's American culture has organically developed into a cathedral style culture? There are very few monastic style churches left....right? It could be half and half I guess...but still, doesn't that call for half the churches to use such "liberal" liturgies for their communities? Or is it more broad and enveloping. Sorry for all the questions...take your time, I know you're busy.
Basically my point was this: if within the community of the Church the Liturgy changes over time - such as the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, for example, which has changed since the 10th century - then that is Liturgical Development and is the product of the Spirit and the Church working together to incarnate the Liturgy.
But, to no offense to those practicing the Western Rite, what you have here is the introduction of a Liturgy to Orthodoxy that has been developing independently of Orthodoxy for hundreds of years, and thus when introduced into Orthodoxy is a radical change to the Liturgical tradition of the Church. I understand that at one time a liturgy of this style existed in the West, but because it has been gone from Orthodoxy it is now a foreign element being brought in - and the change is too radical to be calling just an "adaptation of the culture." Even if one wanted to go back to the Western Liturgy pre-schism, that would be a misstep as well, since that Liturgy has been out of the consciousness of the Church for a thousand years, and would thus be also a radical change to the Liturgical life.
The reason why I don't see the adoption of the Western Rite into Orthodoxy as an "adaptation to culture" is that a change in the Liturgical Worship Core of the Church (the Anaphora) has not been a part of any adaptations to the Church for many centuries. When the Church has gone to Africa, South America, North America, Russia, etc., it has consecrated the culture, baptizing the elements that are good and discarding the elements that oppose the Christian way of life, but while doing so it has also translated the services of the Ancient Church - using one of the existing Liturgical offices, instead of taking any that were present or whatnot. So the Anaphoras of John, Basil, James, Mark - these are the consecratory prayers and systems used, translated into the local language and explained to them in their own terms and such.
What I could see happening is, in those local Churches (and by this I mean dioceses, metropolises, synods... not individual parishes) that are more in a "western" liturgical mindset, slow adaptation of elements of the Western Liturgy into their own... since the liturgies we use today in the rest of the Orthodox world have changed over the centuries as well. But a radical change to the praxis of Orthodoxy I think is problematic.
That said, the bishops of the Antiochian Archdiocese see it fit to have Western Rite parishes, so these points are moot in this place and time. If one of their bishops asked me my honest opinion, I would give it, but the only way to change it is for the bishops, their synod, their patriarch, or an Ecumenical Synod to do so.