Think about it, Peter J: If the Melkites, for instance, came into union with Rome in the 17th century, isn't it a bigger disruption to their traditional spirituality (which Rome has called them, and the other Eastern Catholic Churches, to come back to) to tell them to stop venerating saints from their Orthodox past, in order that they should be "more Catholic" or what have you? A similar example could be made of, say, St. Isaac of Nineveh who is venerated in both the EO and OO (and as far as I know, also in the Catholic communion), despite not being a member of either. To put it another way, a person's Orthodoxy does not change based on who venerates him. If the Melkites want to venerate post-schism saints from their pre-Catholic days, why not? I would much rather have Coptic Catholics looking to the likes of St. Severus (if that happens; I don't know, I just mean it as an example) than Thomas Aquinas or Therese of Lisieux or someone else who really has no basis being in their tradition but is suddenly held up as an example for them purely because it's somehow 'wrong' to venerate their own saints. If it wouldn't have been wrong before the 18th century when they came into union with Rome, why is it suddenly wrong now? Unless, of course, you want to say it's Rome's prerogative to deform their traditional spirituality (which I think would be most honest, but also not anything an ECC would be likely to say/admit/believe), at which point you'd have to wonder what it means to be an Eastern Catholic at all. Either Rome is really serious about this "return to your traditions" thing or she isn't.
