Again, you are being disingenuous.
Did I not start the discussion - my first posted link was M. A. Claussen not Romanides and I posted an excerpted example from M. A. Claussen's work at least three times.
I posted Romanides because YOU brought him up not I. I thought it only proper a third party knows why you inserted him into the conversation.
Click on my profile page for more guidelines concerning the Religion Forum.
You wrote: "Again, you are being disingenuous."
Nope.
"Did I not start the discussion - my first posted link was M. A. Claussen not Romanides and I posted an excerpted example from M. A. Claussen's work at least three times."
And you still can't seem to grasp the obvious fact that Claussen did not say what you claim as a theory. Also, I never denied that your first link was to Claussen and not Romanides. You seem to be having a great deal of difficulty following this.
"I posted Romanides because YOU brought him up not I."
No, you posted Romanides because you believe his works support your argument. Now who is being disingenuous?
"I thought it only proper a third party knows why you inserted him into the conversation."
Then you didn't necessarily offer much help to that third party. You would have offered more help by simply posting the link to the beginning page of his book and leaving it at that. That way people can check it for themselves. By posting as you did, you made Romanides a central part of the discussion (which you claim you never intended) and we are now running down your various rabbit trails to nowhere.
Zeno, I'll probably just leave things here. I did want to post a quote from Claussen's book, however that directly contradicts your "Franks-influencing-Rome" theory:
"A second reason why Chrodegang has generally languished in the shadows suggests itself: he appears to have done nothing new or innovative himself. His rule seems to hew so closely to that of Benedict that it has been called a plagiarism; the canons of the councils he directed often simply repeated those of the past; his romanizing attitudes in liturgy and cult in fact first appeared in England, with the peculiar Anglo-Saxon devotion to the papacy.9 In fact, Chrodegang appears as a Boniface-manqué, without the fire, without the passion. And there is reason to this. Boniface does indeed seem to have been the first to undertake reforms that had the same characteristics as later efforts, especially those under Charlemagne and Louis the Pious. In his unswerving devotion to Rome, his obsession with promulgating certain aspects of canon law, and even his pastoral and missionary drive, Boniface appears to have prefigured what would come in later reform movements. This is, at least in part, an illusion. While many of Boniface’s ideas appear the same as later Carolingian ones, they are similar exactly in appearance, not in substance. For instance, the Carolingian devotion to Rome was radically different from Boniface’s, although they might at surface appear the same.10 The Carolingians looked to Rome for norms and exemplars that would then be subject to modification and adjustment before they could usefully be implemented in Francia. That is, after all, just what the Carolingians did with the Rule of Benedict, and books of canon law, liturgy, and theology which at various times they requested from Rome.11 Rome sometimes did not even supply the correct answers to difficult theological questions, and thus the true defense of the faith required the active intervention of the Franks themselves. We can see this attitude both in the preface to the Salic laws, which describes the Romans as slayers of saints and the Carolingians as preservers of relics, as well as in the controversies surrounding the Opus Caroli regis.12 Chrodegang points to a more critical attitude toward Rome: things coming from Rome, whether they be liturgical habits, manuscripts, theological pronouncements, or political arrangements, needed, like the past itself, to be adapted to fit into Frankish ways of doing things, and to meet particularities of Frankish traditions."
So the Frank in question was well known for "romanizing attitudes in liturgy and cult". And the "The Carolingians looked to Rome for norms and exemplars that would then be subject to modification and adjustment before they could usefully be implemented in Francia. That is, after all, just what the Carolingians did with the Rule of Benedict, and books of canon law, liturgy, and theology which at various times they requested from Rome."
Enough said. There has been no evidence at all presented that show the Franks influenced the Roman Church to change doctrine.