"Many have noted that the traditional Western Mass seems more intent on reminding the worshiper of the death of Christ on the Cross and the believer’s own sinfulness and unworthiness, while the Eastern Divine Liturgy brings to the forefront the eschatological victory of Christ in whose triumph the Christian shares whenever he partakes of the Eucharist, the food of immortality.
It is easy, however, to exaggerate the difference between the “downward” symbolism of the Mass (Christ as suffering redeemer, Christians as miserable sinners) and the “upward” symbolism of the Divine Liturgy (Christ as eternal victor, Christians as already glorified in Him).
Let's assume a fair comparison: a solemn Sunday Mass in the (traditional) Roman rite and a Sunday Divine Liturgy with priest and deacon(s) in the Byzantine rite (the article says "Eastern Divine Liturgy", and it never fails to annoy me that for most Roman Catholics, if they know of the East at all, the only "East" that exists is the Byzantine rite and, in a pinch, the Maronites...but I'll let that pass).
Assuming such a fair comparison, how much of the stereotype discussed above can be discerned from the liturgical celebrations themselves as opposed to the "popular" piety more or less proper to each tradition? My impression, based on my own experience of observing and/or worshiping in these traditions, is that the "difference" Dr Kwasniewski discusses is in the piety with which worshipers approach the Liturgy and not in the liturgy itself, which is usually good about keeping things in proper balance.