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!!!
Nonsense and that is not what was written. This is:
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.
Thus the charge that the Latin Church is really more accurately called the Frankish-Latin Church.