Well, we could say the same of the Latin clergy. It's not as if they were "above it all" and void of prejudices.
However, the way the Orthodox laity keep the hierarchy in check is by long memory. Since very little changes in the liturgy (and, remember, Orthodoxy is governed not by a magisterium but by lex orandi lex credendi), there are at least three, often four generations of believers in the church at any time raised on the same liturgy.
In other words, young adults, their parents, and their parents' parents, who attended the same liturgy and the same feasts year after year after year.
In fact this is how the Jews kept the oral tradition. The operant word is immutability. Ignoring small changes in decor, vestments and order or psalms, in other words theologically insignificant changes, there are three, and even four generations of believes who remember what the liturgy is supposed to be like.
The moment something changes, because a new "progressive" bishop is onboard, they will confront him and challenge him to show them why is such a change justified and where did it come from. Tradition. That's what kept Judaism and treat's what is keeping Eastern Orthodoxy relatively unchanged and immune from innovations.
Once you have a liturgy that is 1700 years old, it's difficult to introduce something new and justify it as something old, patristic, apostolic, trendy, etc.
In the Catholic Church and Protestant communities, there is no such breaking mechanism. Catholic magisterium speaks of a developing doctrine, based on the "deposit" of faith, which basically amounts to "discovery," which is alien tot he East.
The East believes the Church received the faith in full, once and forever and there is nothing else to discover and adjust, and perfect, and fix. The Church is not of this world, and does not change or conform according to it. But in the West, just the opposite is true.
Catholic rituals have changed along the way, but none so drastically as from the late 1960's onward. How can you possibly have three even four generations of believers knowing the same liturgy? How could they possibly 'notice" that something is wrong? Besides, Catholic magisterium is followed blindly. Catholic masses pay, pray and obey without questioning. When one pope removes high candles from the Sunday Mass, no one says anything.
When the crucifix disappears from the altar no one corrects the bishop. Likewise, when one decides to reintroduce them, the Catholic faithful simply accept it. Nicely "domesticated" laity, I must admit.
Catholic Church is founded on constant, never-ending change. Now there is a new translation of the Missal coming out. The old one is not longer "in vogue" but the Church will never admit it is wrong! Things just get replaced without any admission of error, and silently everyone moves on with the new "standards," at least for a while.
This is so essentially opposite to anything in the East, it is unrecognizable and quite scary to be honest with you.
True enough, as well as for the Orthodox clergy. Comparative theology is a specialized field. Sadly, on both sides of the divide, there is little true understanding of the beliefs of the other.
However, the way the Orthodox laity keep the hierarchy in check is by long memory. Since very little changes in the liturgy (and, remember, Orthodoxy is governed not by a magisterium but by lex orandi lex credendi), there are at least three, often four generations of believers in the church at any time raised on the same liturgy.
But we were not divided by changes in the liturgy. The complaints that have historically been made by the Orthodox about the Latin liturgy have been made because they never recognized the legitimacy of ancient Latin practices that differed from the Greek. Even taking into account the changes introduced by typical edition of the Novus Ordo in Latin, like the Orthodox, there have been changes but none that changed our theological understanding of the faith expressed in the liturgy. The new translation that you mentioned is an attempted to recover in the vernacular what has always been present in the official Latin version.
So far, the only change I've heard articulated is the response to the Priest's blessing. We now say "And also with you." They are changing it to "And with your spirit." Funny thing, when I was a new convert we used to say "Et cum spiritu tuo". I don't know Latin, but I think that that means "And with your spirit." Hmmmm.
Of course, none of my children remember the old form. They were just babies. *sigh*
Another thing that I have noticed, having lived through Vatican II -- the people who are the most incensed with changes in the Catholic Church often are people who never were Catholics, or Catholics who left the faith years before. They get all in a snit about habits for nuns, or dropping Latin, or the priest facing the people, etc., etc., etc. It's as if they resent the church changing liturgical forms so that they no longer match their Hollywood interpretaion.