"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.
You stated: "It's up to each rite as to how far they go in returning to their own traditions."
And it's up to the Holy See in Rome to determine what is best for them. Pius XII warned about archeologism in 1947. The Liturgical Renewal that led to the Novus Ordo is proof that the warning was warranted. But, if some particular rite decided to go back to extreme penances for example. The Holy See would have the duty and every right to quash that if they deemed it necessary.
Also, many of the supposed "enforcements" of "latinizations" were freely adopted by the Maronites and may have had practical considerations.
Rome also intervened with great respect for the married clergy as a tradition held. What Rome stomped on was the "re-marriage of Maronite clergy" Since celibacy for the clergy was orginally adopted totally in the East and then became and abuse that was tolerated by the Holy See. Give them an inch and they take a mile.
Rome also had to regulate the number of bishops they were consecrating. They adopted mentioning the name of the Pope in the prayers. The Filioque was also added to reinvorce the understanding of the Trinity and keep them on the straight and narrow regarding orthodoxy.
And, since the U.S. was missioned by the Latin part of the Church, and married clergy is a prime issue among the enemies of the Church, it is wise that the Maronite clergy are forced to adopt a practice that the Orientals once held and is of a higher order in spiritual practice than the married clerical state.
It's actually a brilliant pastoral move. It reinforces the teaching and wisdom of celibacy and reinvigorates the spirituality of the Eastern rites. That prevents the enemies of the Church from playing one part of the Church against the other.