However, this argument can be turned on its head . . .
Yes, any movement to "delatinize" should come from within a Particular EC Church sans Roman directives - in principle.
However, it has been an historical occurrence that Latinization within specific EC contexts came NOT from Rome, but through a number of other venues (of which Rome wasn't even aware).
In the Ruthenian Metropolia of Kyiv-Halych that came into communion with Rome in 1596, Latinization largely resulted from the influence of zealous EC bishops and monastics.
That is not a slight to them because union with Rome did NOT equal Latinization. The Ruthenian Orthodox (Belarusyans and Ukrainians) were just as Latinized as their "uniate" counterparts.
St Peter Mohyla and the Ruthenian Orthodox Saints of the Kyivan Baroque era adopted MANY Latin devotions to Eastern liturgical frameworks (if I was still young with a more agile mind, I'd love to do a Master's thesis or a doctoral dissertation on this very subject - unless someone knows of such a work already published).
Orthodox Christians loved the Brotherhoods of the Immaculate Conception and the "Bloody Vow" to defend to the death the IC doctrine. The Kyiv-Mohyla Orthodox Academy, according to Fr. Florovsky, spent a great deal of liturgical and theological energy in praising the Immaculate Conception well into the 19th century. St Dmitri (Tuptalenko), Metropolitan of Rostov, was himself hauled up on the carpet by the Russian Synod to answer charges relating to this and his other (many) Latin devotions and teachings . . . Fortunately for him, many, if not most, of the members of the Synod were Ukrainian-Belarusyan with a similar spiritual weltanschauung
So the point I'm trying to make (and yes there is one . . .) is that Rome has found it expedient to take the lead, so to speak, in directing EC Churches to take the initiative in terms of "de-Latinizing" in order to save them from themselves (as Rome thought and thinks).
In fact, what is overlooked, even by our esteemed "High Eastern Church Wing" in the UGCC (may we be protected against that ilk . . .
) is that Orthodoxy continues to bear the Latinization it was once prone to, devotionally, liturgically and theologically, but that it somehow continues to maintain itself as . . . Orthodox and Eastern.
Certain sectors within the UGCC (and I'm most familiar with this EC Church as it is my own) would regard with suspicion "de-Latinization" movements as being simply "Russification" movements.
Also, the Eastern wingers of the UGCC tend to refer to their Church as being something of a monolith which they are slowly but surely bringing out of the Latinized "darkness" into which historical circumstances had unwittingly thrust them.
And nothing can be further from actuality. There is no single UGCC along liturgical/theological lines. There is as much variation within the UGCC in these terms as there is in the Anglican churches, not to mention the impact that things like the need for more national cultural content in the Church have on these processes (for that is what they are).
In my own parish, the priests are divided over the use of the translation of "unto eternal ages" i.e. "na viky vikiv" or "na viky vichni" which I shan't go into.
If anything, Rome's intervention from above to settle this matter would be the best thing to happen . . .
I recently had a discussion with one of our Readers in my parish who completely disagreed with the translation of the Our Father . . . When he asked me where I got the version of the Our Father that I habitually use, I told him . . . from the directive that came from Patriarch Lubomyr several years ago . . .
I didn't say anything about the Hail Mary translation . . .
Rome, where are you when some of us need you?!