Shame on you. My first link on the subject was from The Reform of the Frankish Church: Chrodegang of Metz and the Regula canonicorum in the Eighth Century Series: Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought: Fourth Series (No. 61)
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.
That is heavy duty scholarship which like my earlier charge you avoid because you are not able to attack it so you ignore it. Even if you disagree with the book's thesis it is a scholarly book. And I only brought up Romanides because you did. I feel if you bring a person's name up you should post a link so someone reading in on this discussion as a third party can go and read for themselves.
You do know this is public and third parties read this, right? So every time you are being disingenuous it is plain for all to see.
By the way the book I linked on the subject of the Latin Church being subtly and not so subtly changed by the Franks sells for $85.00 on Amazon. The author is not exactly a lightweight on the historical matter.
You wrote:
"Shame on you. My first link on the subject was from The Reform of the Frankish Church: Chrodegang of Metz and the Regula canonicorum in the Eighth Century Series: Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought: Fourth Series (No. 61)"
Yes, it was. And there is no shame on my part at all. You said the source said one thing when it said another. You also have never read the book, right? I have pointed that out twice now. Are you willing to admit that you've never read it yet? The book is about the Frankish Church being influenced by outside influence and NOT about the Frankish Church influencing Rome. The blurb at the link suggests as much.
"That is heavy duty scholarship which like my earlier charge you avoid because you are not able to attack it so you ignore it."
Look, I have a PhD in Medieval History. My primary field was Church history. When you claim I "avoid" this or that "heavy duty scholarship" I can only laugh out loud. Again, nothing in the blurb you linked to, or in the paragraph you just posted claims what you claimed.
Let me demonstrate: "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."
Now, where in that passage do you see Roman Church mentioned? Nowhere. Because it isn't about the Roman Church. It is about the activities of Frankish cleric. Not a Roman one. It is about a Frankish cleric who adopted and adapted Roman and even Greek rituals for the reform of the Frankish Church. It is not at all about the Frankish Church influencing the Roman Church to change doctrine. The passage says exactly NOTHING about that. I defy you to show me where in that passage it says the Franks influenced the Romans to change a doctrine? Can you? No. You will fail. I have already pointed out before that this passage says nothing of what you claim it does.
"Even if you disagree with the book's thesis it is a scholarly book."
I entirely agree. I also never said otherwise. What I said was you used a source that contradicts you (that's this onw) and Romanides. That's all you got -- which ain't nothin'.
"And I only brought up Romanides because you did."
Because I am well aquainted with the usual limitations in knowledge on the part of EOs on this issue. For the EOs there is Romanides and nothing else but Romanides.
"I feel if you bring a person's name up you should post a link so someone reading in on this discussion as a third party can go and read for themselves."
I think (you can "feel" all you like) that anyone here who sees a term or name that is unfamiliar can always use google.
"You do know this is public and third parties read this, right?"
Yes, but it is not my responsibility to hold everyone's hand either. Again, google.
"So every time you are being disingenuous it is plain for all to see."
Then no one will see anything since I have yet to be disingenuous.
Are you ever going to respond to the fact that there were EOs who renounced the Assumption of Mary merely because a pope defined it as a doctrine? That would be a change in EO doctrine would it not?