I'm not sure I like the changes "pope" Benedict made to the Nicene Creed (I think it is)

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Well, I think it's pretty darn obvious that the Lutherans separated from Rome. I don't think this is controversial. There is no merit in making this more difficult than it is. What happened 500 years earlier does not affect the fact that the Lutherans separated from Rome.

Actually, there was no desire to leave the Catholic Church; one need only to read the Augsburg Confession and the Apology (Explanation) of the Augsburg Confession. It becomes very clear that the desire was to remain within the Catholic Church even under the Authority of the Pope (as far as his authority remained in concord with Scripture.

Don't believe us? There are two documents in our confessions (Unaltered 1590 edition of the Book of Concord. All confessional Lutherans accept and hold these and the rest of the Book of Concord as a true exposition of the Word of God. These can be found here:

The Augsburg Confession

bookofconcord.org

Defense of the Augsburg Confession

bookofconcord.org

 

[zippy2006]

No, I mean, Rome could be regarded to have separated from Lutheranism, insofar as Lutheranism reverted changes with Rome had made to liturgical praxis. But on the other hand Lutheranism represents a rupture in other respects.

I think Rome could be regarded to have separated from Constantinople in 1054, but not from Lutheranism. There is no Lutheran authority structure predating Lutheranism which Rome could have separated itself from, and you cannot separate yourself from a tradition that has not existed. In the case of the Eastern Orthodox there was a tradition that existed. I don't think the Lutheran idea that there was some invisible authority structure stretching backwards in time, which can then be reified as an authority capable of pronouncing a schism, is in the least bit plausible. Because it is not the least bit plausible, the Lutherans sought common cause with the Orthodox, who were initially interested but soon realized that the Lutheran position was deeply problematic, both doctrinally and canonically.

One could say there was a rupture; one could say that Lutheranism (schismatically) separated itself from Rome; one could say that Rome (non-schismatically) separated itself from Lutheranism insofar as excommunication involves material separation; but one cannot say that Rome (schismatically) separated itself from Lutheranism, even though one could say that Rome (schismatically) separated itself from Constantinople (just as one could say that Constantinople (schismatically) separated itself from Rome).

 

[zippy2006]

Actually, there was no desire to leave the Catholic Church; one need only to read the Augsburg Confession and the Apology (Explanation) of the Augsburg Confession. It becomes very clear that the desire was to remain within the Catholic Church even under the Authority of the Pope (as far as his authority remained in concord with Scripture.

So said the Arians, and the Nestorians, and the Iconoclasts, and every other group that did the same thing, on and on. "We don't want to leave, but/and you must acknowledge our doctrines."