I would like to (partially) respond to answers above and to drop some my comments.
Firstly, I don’t think we should be afraid too much of changes. Naturally, not all of them are organic or positive, but many of them are good, even some latinizations are, in my oppinion, a right thing. Things, people, churches, rites… involve, interact and change. I would like to mention that there are some small “latinizations” which were embraced by Orthodox churches (usually in mixed areas) because they are just more practical. And many thing are just more like regional or national difference and not purely matter of rite.
But I agree that preserving own rite or, more precisely, its spirit and nature, is a good idea. Sometimes it is really funny how western part of the Church seems to be more pro-eastern than the eastern one itself.
Well, I think it is not far from the right time to mention some potential problem: something what could occur like too much eastern protection. If cca 2 % of Catholics have let’s say 5 % of cardinals and their hierarchs are in the most honorific places in processions, some people could start not to like it even if just this were the right thing to do. I don’t want to imply there is in fact to much pro-eastern protection. I think that in many topics Eastern Catholic Churches are in position of “mercifully tolerated” liliputs, not the ones of being parts of body with full set of rights (and responsibilities).
Vatican 1st was quite antieastern, Vatican 2nd vice verse. I am afraid John Paul II’s policy was in some distinct points similar to the worst of USA politics: you don’t know how to manage your own things and so we will do it for you (well, he didn’t start wars to enforce his interests).
Benedict XVI kept tradition (with just and only one exception) to create an eastern cardinal in each consistory, in the last one in quite an obvious way he created two ones. Malankara church became a catholicate (or major archbishopric if you want) as well as Romanian GCC. This was quite “excessive” because there is just one metropolitan structure. Slovak GCC became metropolitan church. On the other hand, his Near East Synod is by many eastern Christians believed to be about nothing and meaning nothing, just a friendly meeting and good performed ceremonies.
There were some expectations that Francis would be somehow near to the East. JP2 was Slav and B16 still from Europe and with excellent knowledge of eastern church fathers, but Francis is from the part of the world tremendously far away from Near/Middle East and Europe – home places for eastern churches. So this expectation was probably based (just) on the fact he was ordinary for some Eastern Catholics in Argentina + he knew personally some EC priest. I doubt this is enough. He loves peripheries and seems to care about Syria, but I haven’t noticed any exclusively eastern action of his. And his way of approaching and handling synod seems to me quite unsynodal and uneastern, in fact western with papal extra force included, just in a newer way. And then Eritrean metropolia, Ethiopian cardinal, and today Hungarian metropolia. I think it remains to be seen how his eastern approach will continue and if it will, if this were not just “normal things which came to be done in fullness of their time”, if we see some real care for East, not just coincidence. But there is also a big bad point: decision to support mutiny against Chaldean patriarch in favour of priests who have been remaining in uncanonical state for a decade. (They abandoned their home eparchies without solving this situation and have been serving under (permanently) rebelling bishop.)
By the way, when Eritrean metropolia was separated, it was a little bit more vivid here. Now this Hungarian promotion seems to leave people not to be so excited.
