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.
From Claussen: 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.
So your point fails.
I guess Charlie didn't read or was a lair.