[Gerard.P]

The Maronite rite wouldn't be the maronite rite without some of those Latinizations. It's probable that those latinizations are what have kept the maronites from schism out of all of the Eastern rites.

What is the prejudice against the latin influence? Would St.James have railed against picking up an idea or two from St. Peter? Answer: No.

For example unleavened bread has a more sophisticated spiritual imagery behind it than leavened bread. (though leavened bread is sufficient for the consecration)

How far do you want this to go? Might as well get rid of anything in the Maronite rite that isn't "pure" No Arabic. Strictly Syriac.

[RKBA Democrat]

"What is the prejudice against the latin influence? Would St.James have railed against picking up an idea or two from St. Peter? Answer: No."

I have nothing against the latin rite or latin tradition per se. I happen to be a latin rite Catholic. I just don't see that the church as a whole gains by homogenizing into one tradition.

There are roughly 21 eastern rites (churches) in communion within the Catholic church. The Maronites represent one of those rites. There happen to be several others. I strongly doubt that adopting latinizations is a primary reason why the Maronites are in communion.

Learning ideas from one another is one thing. Having someone else's traditions essentially forced upon you is quite another. So while I would agree that St. James would not rail against St. Peter for picking up ideas, I doubt that either Saint would condone an insistence that one church should practice the other's traditions.

Unfortunately, that has happened quite a bit in the U.S. One of the major schisms eastern Catholics experienced in the U.S. was caused by latin rite Catholics essentially forcing the latin norm of celibate clergy on eastern rite (Byzantine) Catholics who have had a long tradition of married priests.

It's up to each rite as to how far they go in returning to their own traditions. The broad direction received by the eastern Catholic churches from the Vatican for many years now has been to return to their traditions.

[Kolokotronis]

" It's probable that those latinizations are what have kept the maronites from schism out of all of the Eastern rites."

The latinizations which so changed the original liturgy of the Maronites came long, long after the Great Schism. Of all the non Latin Churches in communion with Rome, the Maronites likely became the most latinized. It is a magnificent thing that the Maronites, by a decision of their own Synod in Lebanon have embarked on a restoration of their original rite. Whatever the merits, or lack thereof, of the Roman domination of the Maronite Church and its consequent latinization, those merits are long gone.

You mention Syriac. The original liturgy of the The Church at Antioch was chanted in Syriac because that's the language the people spoke. Today its Arabic. What is important is that in the East, the language of the liturgy traditionally has been the language of the people. With good translations, the vernacular is what is faithful to Tradition, not an ancient language. In the event that the laos tou Theou can understand the ancient language in all its subtleties, that's fine, though.