Sometimes, the chosen past turned out to be less than usable. An illustrative example of this is the sacramentary that Charlemagne requested and received from Pope Hadrian at the end of the eighth century. This text, the so-called Gregorian sacramentary, although certainly hailing from Rome, did not fulfill the liturgical needs of the Franks, nor meet their expectations of what a Roman liturgical book should be. Benedict of Aniane, one of Charlemagne’s monastic advisors and perhaps the court’s liturgical expert, revised the sacramentary, adding, modifying, and deleting material to produce a book that could be promulgated throughout the empire. In other words, Benedict took a preexisting tradition – in this case, a Roman text – and changed it to produce a new text and a new kind of tradition.6 At other times, a usable past simply did not exist. Occasionally, there was insufficient historical information available to reformers, so that they were forced to turn to their own devices, but, more often, men and women in the early Middle Ages could face problems and situations for which the past did not supply appropriate analogues. To deal with this sort of situation, a past had to be created, a history invented, a tradition assembled. This effort could not be undertaken lightly: it demanded all the scholarly resources, intellectual verve, and spiritual discretion that a reformer might possess. The act of creation itself would often involve a sort of cobbling together of bits of the past gathered here and there, a bundling of whatever information and knowledge might be available, and a fitting of this newly made historical bricolage into a framework that the writers of the original sources might not have recognized.
And what was/were the Pope(s) response?
You wrote: "A good book on the origins of the Frankish-Latin Church we now call Roman Catholic:"
Nonsense. The book claims NOTHING like what you want it to. According to your logic the following quote would have to prove that the Franks also created a Frankish-Greek Church or what we now call Eastern Orthodox: "And the same is true for his liturgical innovations: where Metz was poor, where Francia as a whole might have been lacking, Jerusalem or Rome or Constantinople were rich, good measure and flowing over. Importing the traditions of other churches, appropriating their history, and thus making it part of his own, Chrodegang’s work lay at the foundation of the Carolingian spiritual revival of the later eighth and ninth centuries."
Wow, they borrowed and adapted things from Constantinople just like they did from Rome? That means, using your poor logic, that they created the Frankish-Greek Church. So you are not Orthodox at all. Your really Frankish-Greek.
Try actually thinking next time. No matter what the Franks did, if it was Frankish, then it was Frankish. You have not shown ANY cause and effect changes flowing from Frankish Gaul to Rome. So far, you have only SHOWN the OPPOSITE. You are defeating and undercutting your own argument. Yeah, of course you are. ROFLOL!!!