Anti-Catholic hardline Orthodox making fun of the Carpatho-Russians for their longtime latinizations and saying the Carpatho-Russians weren't really Orthodox because of them.
To be honest, I think the conflation of "Orthodoxy" with "Eastern-ness" is one of the things that troubles me most about Orthodoxy. (Not that I would necessarily become Orthodox in any case; I'm just saying.)
Frankly the kind of sentiment expressed above strikes me as excessive an overreaction as that which it seeks to counter. Why?
One hardly needs to "conflate" early Christianity Eastward insofar as contextualization of early Christianity primarily to Eastern language, culture, and thought is basic to its history. It is one thing to oppose an over-reactive "anti-Western bias" as such. It is quite another to deny, minimize, or be "troubled by" the Eastern roots and context of early Christianity which on close inspection starts to look rather more like denying one's own parents.
Judaism and Christianity began in and unfolded from the ancient Near East. Their sacred scriptures were originally penned in Eastern languages (Hebrew and Koine Greek). They are not rightly understood if wrest from the context of ancient Eastern literary genres, speech figures, thought patterns and so on. The East was the site for the first seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787AD); the overwhelming majority of bishops at these councils were Eastern. The predominant "Eastern-ness" of early Christianity is not a matter of "conflation" so much as basic historiography. There is nothing surprising about the deﬁning of church doctrine in the East. Not only had Constantine shifted the seat of the Roman empire there; that is where most of the Christian churches, Christian learning, patriarchs and bishops and theologians and so on were.
Modem admirers of the Latin Mass claim that they are defending a universal language, the tongue of the Roman empire, but it was never that. The lingua franca of Roman rule was Greek -Rome had inherited the eastern territories conquered and settled by Alexander’s Greek troops. Koine "pidgin Greek" was what merchants and bureaucrats used to communicate with the motley elements of the empire. Pilate and Jesus had to speak to each other in Koine, since one had no Aramaic and the other had no Latin. Koine Greek was the original language of the church, of the Gospels, of the liturgy, of Jews and Christians who traveled to Rome. Latin was not to became Rome’s official language until the middle of the third century. Peter would not have spoken Latin, even in Rome, and Latin did not become the language of the Mass there until the third century. After the fall of the city of old Rome the papacy, left behind in the abandoned ruins of the former capital of the empire had to adjust to the needs of the people there -of Latins who were neither cosmopolitan intellectuals speaking classical Greek nor immigrants from areas speaking Koine, but native speakers of the native tongue.
Virgil, looking at the prospects of the Roman empire in a Greek-speaking world, had expressed a fear that Latin would be swallowed up in Greek. That fear might have seemed justified as the empire moved out from Rome to the East or to Greek-speaking cities in Italy like Milan and Aquileia and Ravenna. In the fourth century, Ambrose of Milan was a far more inﬂuential Christian leader than Pope Damasus in Rome. and not only because Ambrose possessed the more forceful character. He also had the advantage of living in the imperial city. and of speaking Greek to its rulers.Why am I bothering to say this? Not because I am in any way "anti-West" (such an attitude as a basic mold or posture seems silly to me personally), but because what appears at times to be an equal and opposite counter-reaction, without the proper qualifications, can appear even more on the order of obscurantism and/or simply living in denial than the excesses it is seeking to reply to.
One simply cannot properly understand Judaism or early Christianity de-contextualized from ancient Near Eastern language, culture and thought forms within which it largely emerged without tacitly or explicitly falling into anachronism and obscurantism.