Eucharistic adoration is not a Byzantine practice.  Where it existed in the Byzantine Church it was due to Roman influence.  I am a big fan of Eucharistic Adoration, and I participate in it whenever I can, but I was born in the Latin rite.  

I am not sure what the priest meant, exactly.  The Byzantine Liturgy itself has not changed significantly since VC II.  What has changed, in some cases, latinized way it is celebrated.  This has involved reviving the use of  authentic Byzantine icons, music, and architecture.

For example, I went to a Byzantine Divine Liturgy in Pittsburgh in the 80's.  There was no Iconostasis.  There were holy water fonts at the doors and stations of the cross on the walls.  There were six Latin Candlesticks on the altar, and a Latin style Tabernacle in the center.  There were no liturgical fans, the servers wore Latin style cassocks and surplices, and worst of all, the Liturgy was recited with no incense.  They even describe it as a Low Mass on the sign out front.

All of these things belong in a Latin rite church.  None of them belong in a Byzantine church.  This is not because there is anything wrong with them, but because they are not Byzantine traditions.  I really didn't object  to the stations, but the removal of the Iconostasis and the lack of chant and incense (there is no such thing as a Low Mass in the Byzantine rite) is a fundamental betrayal of the integrity of the Byzantine liturgy.   This was largely due to the nefarious influence of one Nicholas Elko, the Eparch of Pittsburgh in the Ruthenian rite many years ago.  He did his level best to destroy the Byzantine Liturgy and the Byzantine appearance of every church in his eparchy. He wanted them to "look Catholic" which meant looking Roman. His priests eventually rose up in rebellion and he was removed and sent packing to the Archdiocese of Cincinnati, where he became what I am told is the only auxiliary archbishop in the history of the Catholic Church.  

Sorry, I got off on a tangent here.  This makes my blood boil a bit, however.  Anyway, I hope this is what the priest meant.  I have not seen much evidence that Eastern Catholics have become anything like as liberal as NO Catholics.  As I mentioned on another thread, I am fortunate enough to be able to attend a Byzantine or Maronite Rite Matins, Divine Liturgy, or Vespers every day now if I am able to drive, at most, 45 minutes.  I have never heard a heretical sermon in a Byzantine church.  I hear contraception regularly called a sin, and I have never heard it praised or excused.  I used to hear that often in NO churches.  

I am not sure if this helps.  I will try to offer more information if needed.

Incidentally, my son once chatted with a priest colleague of his who was one of only two Byzantine priests to attend Archbishop Elko's very NO Latin rite Funeral.  This priest was famous among Ruthenians for opposing Elko's reign of terror, and celebrating the Liturgy as correctly as possible.  He told my son, "Really ,I just wanted to be sure he was dead."

Eucharistic adoration is not a Byzantine practice.  Where it existed in the Byzantine Church it was due to Roman influence.  I am a big fan of Eucharistic Adoration, and I participate in it whenever I can, but I was born in the Latin rite.  

This is not true. The adoration of the Most Blessed Sacrament is also destined for Byzantine and other Eastern Rite Catholics, fitting within their own proper Rite.

Before St. Juliana of Liège, the Roman Rite or Western Latin Church also hardly knew Eucharistic exposition.

Of the Byzantine Catholic Churches should decide themselves how to do the adoration, and create laws and liturgical regulation for it.

I am not sure what the priest meant, exactly.  The Byzantine Liturgy itself has not changed significantly since VC II.  What has changed, in some cases, latinized way it is celebrated.  This has involved reviving the use of  authentic Byzantine icons, music, and architecture.

No, the Ruthenian and Ukrainian Greek Catholics were often forced, after Vatican II, to discard their beloved pious customs (such as the Stations of the Cross) to implement the Russian Orthodox (schismatic) Patriarchate's liturgical post-1667 styles, which were fairly young in fact (although looking old).

Also, in Western countries and Ukraine, Church Slavonic was removed to introduce the vernacular language, producing problems like that with the Novus Ordo (although not as bad, not involving validity and orthodoxy mostly fortunately).

For example, I went to a Byzantine Divine Liturgy in Pittsburgh in the 80's.  There was no Iconostasis.  There were holy water fonts at the doors and stations of the cross on the walls.  There were six Latin Candlesticks on the altar, and a Latin style Tabernacle in the center.  There were no liturgical fans, the servers wore Latin style cassocks and surplices, and worst of all, the Liturgy was recited with no incense.  They even describe it as a Low Mass on the sign out front.

This was the product of the Latinization of the Eastern Catholics in the United States by Irish and German American (Latin Rite) archbishops responsible for them.

Of course some Eastern Catholics in the USA (and in Poland, equally heavy Latinization and even Polonization attempts) came to cherish these Latin Rite customs as their own (in a particular peculiar mix).

I do agree that Low Mass, lack of Divine Liturgy fans and incense are not very Byzantine Rite.

All of these things belong in a Latin rite church.  None of them belong in a Byzantine church.  This is not because there is anything wrong with them, but because they are not Byzantine traditions.  I really didn't object  to the stations

The stations of the Cross and Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament are pious practices for the universal Church, including the Byzantine Rite Catholics. There is no need to freeze things in an anti-Latin way in order to totally accomodate and adapt to the Byzantine schismatics (Eastern Orthodox).

 

but the removal of the Iconostasis and the lack of chant and incense (there is no such thing as a Low Mass in the Byzantine rite) is a fundamental betrayal of the integrity of the Byzantine liturgy.

The iconostasis was never 'removed' from that church in Pittsburgh. It probably never was in it anytime.

This was largely due to the nefarious influence of one Nicholas Elko, the Eparch of Pittsburgh in the Ruthenian rite many years ago.  He did his level best to destroy the Byzantine Liturgy and the Byzantine appearance of every church in his eparchy. He wanted them to "look Catholic" which meant looking Roman.

Eparch Nicholas Elko resisted Vatican II's and post-conciliar instructions to adapt to the Eastern Orthodox schismatics and to discard a centuries old cherished 'Latinized' pastoral approach.

Elko was more of a conservative therefore. Not 'nefarious' per se, although I do not promote Latinization myself. But I think keeping customs and stations and Adoration is good. It is therefore that the Priestly Society of Saint Josaphat in Ukraine was founded by the SSPX in 1997, to resist (alongside false ecuмenism and modernism) adaptation into a (vernacularized!!!) Moscow-like liturgy.

His priests eventually rose up in rebellion and he was removed and sent packing to the Archdiocese of Cincinnati, where he became what I am told is the only auxiliary archbishop in the history of the Catholic Church.  

Sorry, I got off on a tangent here.  This makes my blood boil a bit, however.  Anyway, I hope this is what the priest meant.  I have not seen much evidence that Eastern Catholics have become anything like as liberal as NO Catholics.  As I mentioned on another thread, I am fortunate enough to be able to attend a Byzantine or Maronite Rite Matins, Divine Liturgy, or Vespers every day now if I am able to drive, at most, 45 minutes.  I have never heard a heretical sermon in a Byzantine church.  I hear contraception regularly called a sin, and I have never heard it praised or excused.  I used to hear that often in NO churches.

Eastern Catholic Churches and diocese after Vatican II suffered from such pro-Orthodox ecuмenicist rebellion of priests against conservative 'Latinized' Eastern Rite elderly bishops like abp. Elko who was just moved around.

The Maronite Rite is especially Novus Ordoized, complete with table instead of altar!

Of course socially and morally, Eastern Rite Catholics tend to be more conservative, but then again the "Latin Rite" Novus Ordo church today is really extremely apostate and liberal.
 
The liturgical 'restorational' changes in the Byzantine Rite Catholic churches however accompany a particularly relativist ecuмenist approach of Eastern Orthodox schismatics by these same 'de-Latinizers'.

The Latinization was initially probably illegitimate, but also developed with consent or at request of the pious Eastern Rite Catholic laity, who also developed admiration for the Stations of the Cross 'Latin' custom and e.g. the Rosary.

When will the Byzantinists also deem the Rosary of Our Lady a 'Latin practice'? Stop praying the Rosary then? I hope NOT!
 

Incidentally, my son once chatted with a priest colleague of his who was one of only two Byzantine priests to attend Archbishop Elko's very NO Latin rite Funeral.  This priest was famous among Ruthenians for opposing Elko's reign of terror, and celebrating the Liturgy as correctly as possible.  He told my son, "Really ,I just wanted to be sure he was dead."

Sad to read that Elko was buried in the Novus Ordo 'Latin' rite. Reign of terror seems exaggerated? Or was Elko a doctrinal modernist and ecuмenist and neo-Protestant? I think hardly, if you kept six altar candles and the Byzantine liturgical texts. I think this anecdote of yours lacks charity towards the deceased abp. Elko.

Thanks Sigismund. I knew you would give a great answer, and you didn't disappoint. I was trying to get a read on the priest I spoke with, and couldn't tell from our short conversation how liberal he might be. I remember calling him once asking about the hours of confession, as Hobbledehoy validity wouldn't be too much of an issue in the Byzantine Rite.

Thanks Sigismund. I knew you would give a great answer, and you didn't disappoint. I was trying to get a read on the priest I spoke with, and couldn't tell from our short conversation how liberal he might be. I remember calling him once asking about the hours of confession, as Hobbledehoy validity wouldn't be too much of an issue in the Byzantine Rite.

I have found that Byzantine churches are a bit less likely than Latin ones to have set times for confession.  However, I have found Byzantine priests to be very approachable for confession upon request.  Not that I have found approachability to be a problem among Latin rite clergy.

I have always avoided going to confession to my son, mostly because he told me when he was ordained that he found the prospect of hearing confessions from either of his parents disconcerting.  He gave his mother the last Sacraments, and I assume confession was part of that, although of course I was not in the room.  Other than that, I don't think either of use ever confessed to him.  This is now a bit of a practical problem because I am a member of his parish.  I have practiced weekly confession for most of my life.  Before I moved here, I had a regular Latin rite confessor.  He is now too far away to see weekly.  Fortunately I have found no shortage of good confessors of both rites where I live now.