A Quick Summary of Exsurge Domine

[Topper17]

“In the winter of 1562 it was still not clear how much – if anything significant – the new session of the Council of Trent would be able to accomplish. …………The Protestants were invited and assured safe-conducts, but few expected them to come; most of the German (Catholic) bishops so feared the Lutherans that they stayed away themselves, despite the best efforts of Emperor Ferdinand I, the Catholic brother of Charles V who was as firm in the Faith as he had been, to persuade them to attend.” Warren H. Carroll, “The Cleaving of Christendom”, pg. 286

In regards to the conclusions of that 1562 session, Carroll continues:

“All of the decrees of the previous sessions were re-read and their approval was confirmed. All 225b Council Fathers present signed them, and 39 proxies from absent Fathers were recorded in their favor………

The homilist at the opening Mass of this last day of the final session of the Council of Trent directly addressed the Protestants:

“We have chosen this city, at the entrance into Germany, on the very threshold, so to speak, of their house,; in order to remove all suspicion from their minds, we have refused to be guarded by troops, we have issued letters of safe conduct which they themselves have framed; we have waited for them, we have begged and implored them to come and gain knowledge from the light of truth.”

Yet they had not come’, without significant exception, they had indeed not shown the slightest inclination to come; they had cut themselves off from the Church Christ founded. There could be no more attempts at negotiation or compromise with them, which over almost half a century had given every possible opportunity to happen and to succeed. There must then be, in each country, a fight to the finish. For nearly everyone in that age, Catholic or Protestant, believed unquestioningly that in the end all churches of a nation must preach the same doctrine and acknowledge the same head……With no compromise or reconciliation possible, the great issue could therefore only be settled on the battlefield, and to the battlefield it was now committed…………

Almost miraculously, those proclaiming both doctrine and reform, despite all the differences that had developed between the Protestants – between Lutherans and Calvinists especially,……as well as among Anabaptists, mainline Protestants, and Unitarians – was very impressive and well noted.” Carroll, pg. 299-301

Ben, the summary of these quotes is as follows and it is VERY different than the standard Protestant “Legend” which portrays Protestantism as being kept from Trent by the Church.

The Pope invited the Protestants to an Ecumenical Council in Mantua in 1537 (which was to become the Council of Trent. The Protestants returned the invitation unopened. Still though the Pope agreed to the Protestant demand to have the Council on German Soil. In 1551 the Pope agrees to give the Lutherans a fair hearing. The Protestants attend and demand that the Council its vows to the Pope, annul all prior decisions of the Council, and that new discussions be initiated. Rather than destroy the Church, Julius refuses. The Protestants threaten Trent militarily and Trent closes for the time being. In 1562 Protestants are again invited to the Council and even the Emperor is unable to convince them to. After this last session, Trent is closed. Europe descends into a series of wars in which, overall, tens of millions are killed.

Those are the historical facts Ben – facts that I have never read in a Protestant account of either the Reformation or of Luther’s life. It seems pretty obvious at this point that Luther was wrong to recommend that the Protestants reject the invitation to attend the Council.

 

[Tomyris]

In regard to the OP, it seems that Trent misunderstood Lutheran positions, and Lutherans misunderstood Roman positions, and Pope Leo X did nothing to help the situation by issuing a blanket condemnation. What might have transpired had Martin and Leo sat down to discuss the points where they agreed?

Thought I to me, hey, me, Trent is not* Ex Surge*. Then thought I I should back it up, and so I thought. In purpose and plan they differ as ducks and chickens, the former to reprimand Luther, the latter to universalize Catholic (sorry about translinguistic rendunancy) teaching on the issues at hand. One was to call one man back, the other to set in order the Church, one was purely reactionary against what they thought they knew of Luther by what he had said to the point, the second addressing their understanding of Protestant thought in general. Trent is a lot longer, attempting to be comprehensive, Ex Surge the product of Roman theologians against the upstart boar of the Reformation. Thus, think I, it is perilous to represent Ex Surge as a doctrinal document, although it contains doctrine. It may be consonant with Trent, but that is not the point here. Or of Ex surge.

 

[guanophore]

Yikes. If that’s truly how Trent understands Lutheranism, then the Catholic Church had never had a clear understanding of what we Lutherans believe. Tomster, is this your writing, or are you pulling from a source?

Trent was addressing a broad variety of heretical concepts, and some of the statements/declarations were made more specifically against Calvanism.

I,too, am interested in a source.

 

[steido01]

Thought I to me, hey, me, Trent is not* Ex Surge*.

Obviously. I don’t think I ever conflated the two. But to pretend that Exsurge Domine didn’t influence the Catholic perspective at Trent is naive, at best. When the pope issues a bull, everyone listens (unless you’re busy burning it). I’m just saying that Leo’s blanket condemnation of Luther’s teachings was not helpful to anyone. I think it’s reasonable to hold that it was the bull that set the tone for what would become Trent.

 

[rcwitness]

Obviously. I don’t think I ever conflated the two. But to pretend that Exsurge Domine didn’t influence the Catholic perspective at Trent is naive, at best. When the pope issues a bull, everyone listens (unless you’re busy burning it). I’m just saying that Leo’s blanket condemnation of Luther’s teachings was not helpful to anyone. I think it’s reasonable to hold that it was the bull that set the tone for what would become Trent.

From what I gathered to be Luther’s “teachings”, were more like a condemnation of Catholic Teaching. And Luther’s language and manner had nothing to do with the tone of defending the Teachings?

 

[steido01]

You state that it was the Roman Catholic side which backed away from dialogue prior to Trent.

When put in a single sentence, it was Rome that did not want dialogue. It wanted the Lutherans to submit and/or disappear. But we all know history is more nuanced than a sentence.

“In 1536 [Pope Paul III] issued a call for a general council to meet at Mantua on May 23, 1537, and he invited the Protestants to attend. He assumed that all parties in attendance would accept the conclusions of the conference; but the Protestants, who would be in the minority there, could hardly accept such an oblication. Luther advised against attending, and the congress of Protestants at Schmalkalden returned the Pope’s invitation unopened. The Emperor still insisted that the council should meet on German soil, on Italian soil, he argued, it would be crowded with Italian bishops and become a puppet of the Pope. After many negotiations and delays Paul agreed to have the council meet at Trent, which though predominately Italian, was in Imperial territory and subject to Charles. The council was summoned to meet there on November 1, 1542.” Will Durant, “The Reformation”, pg. 927

…

Pope Julius III “summoned the Council to meet again at Trent in May 1551, and agreed that the Lutherans should be given a fair hearing…

It’s a whopping 78 miles from Mantua to Trent. Today you can drive the distance in an hour. Trent was crowded with Italian representatives loyal to the pope.

Continued…

 

[steido01]

And I question how fair a Council can be when the stated purpose was “the utter extirpation of the poisonous, pestilential Lutheran heresy” (Papal Bull concerning the Reforms of the Roman Court)”. It was never intended to be a fair council. It was born of the same spirit of Exsurge Domine.

The truth of the matter was that the Lutherans feared they’d receive the same “safe conduct” promised to Jan Hus (can you blame them?).

Here are two sources with a fuller grasp of the historical circumstances:

1. wlsessays.net/files/BalgeSmalcald.rtf
2. cph.org/pdf/531154.pdf (p.255 or 20 in the .pdf)

To say that Luther personally objected to a free council requires a willful ignorance of historical fact. But why trust secondary sources? Lets read primary text. Here’s Luther in his own words, in his Preface to Smalkald (reader, excuse the bombastic quality of Luther’s personal rhetoric):

Since Pope Paul III convoked a Council last year, to assemble at Mantua about Whitsuntide, and afterwards transferred it from Mantua, so that it is not yet known where he will or can fix it, and we on our part either had to expect that we would be summoned also to the Council or [to fear that we would] be condemned unsummoned, I was directed to compile and collect the articles of our doctrine [in order that it might be plain] in case of deliberation as to what and how far we would be both willing and able to yield to the Papists, and in what points we intended to persevere and abide to the end.

I have accordingly compiled these articles and presented them to our side. They have also been accepted and unanimously confessed by our side, and it has been resolved that, in case the Pope with his adherents should ever be so bold as seriously and in good faith, without lying and cheating, **to hold a truly free [legitimate] Christian Council **(as, indeed, he would be in duty bound to do), they be publicly delivered in order to set forth the Confession of our Faith.

But though the Romish court is so dreadfully afraid of a free Christian Council, and shuns the light so shamefully, that it has [entirely] removed, even from those who are on its side, the hope that it will ever permit a free Council, much less that it will itself hold one, whereat, as is just, they [many Papists] are greatly offended and have no little trouble on that account [are disgusted with this negligence of the Pope], since they notice thereby that the Pope would rather see all Christendom perish and all souls damned than suffer either himself or his adherents to be reformed even a little, and his [their] tyranny to be limited, nevertheless I have determined meanwhile to publish these articles in plain print, so that, should I die before there would be a Council (as I fully expect and hope, because the knaves who flee the light and shun the day take such wretched pains to delay and hinder the Council), those who live and remain after me may have my testimony and confession to produce, in addition to the Confession which I have issued previously, whereby up to this time I have abided, and, by God’s grace, will abide.

For what shall I say? How shall I complain? I am still living, writing, preaching, and lecturing daily…

…

But to return to the subject.** I verily desire to see a truly Christian Council** [assembled some time], in order that many matters and persons might be helped…

But we see in the bishoprics everywhere so many parishes vacant and desolate that one’s heart would break, and yet neither the bishops nor canons care how the poor people live or die, for whom nevertheless Christ has died, and who are not permitted to hear Him speak with them as the true Shepherd with His sheep. This causes me to shudder and fear that at some time He may send a council of angels upon Germany utterly destroying us, like Sodom and Gomorrah, because we so wantonly mock Him with the Council.

Besides such necessary ecclesiastical affairs, there would be also in the political estate innumerable matters of great importance to improve. There is the disagreement between the princes and the states; usury and avarice have burst in like a flood, and have become lawful [are defended with a show of right]; wantonness, lewdness, extravagance in dress, gluttony, gambling, idle display, with all kinds of bad habits and wickedness, insubordination of subjects, of domestics and laborers, of every trade, also the exactions [and most exorbitant selling prices] of the peasants (and who can enumerate all?) have so increased that they cannot be rectified by ten Councils and twenty Diets.

…

O Lord Jesus Christ, do Thou Thyself convoke a Council, and deliver Thy servants by Thy glorious advent! The Pope and his adherents are done for; they will have none of Thee. Do Thou, then, help us, who are poor and needy, who sigh to Thee, and beseech Thee earnestly, according to the grace which Thou hast given us, through Thy Holy Ghost, who liveth and reigneth with Thee and the Father, blessed forever. Amen.

I’m not the first Lutheran to say it, but I’ve said it before on these forums: In a way, Lutherans are still “waiting for Mantua.”

 

[steido01]

From what I gathered to be Luther’s “teachings”, were more like a condemnation of Catholic Teaching.

Nope. Our communions have a lot in common. And had actual dialogue taken place prior to or at Trent, I think we’d have even more, doctrinally.

And Luther’s language and manner had nothing to do with the tone of defending the Teachings?

I’ve neither said nor implied that. No Lutheran here has. Luther was often a rascal when it came to tone and behavior. But one would expect that a pope or a council might be able to see through whatever ‘tone’ existed and get at the meat of Luther’s actual teaching. Unfortunately for us today, Pope Leo’s bull didn’t take the time to address Luther’s teachings, only to condemn them altogether. And that method of response carried over into Trent.

 

[spina1953]

My understanding of Pope Leo X’s papal Bull of 1520 was in response to Luther’s 95 Thesis and other writings attributed to him. The papal Bull did not directly condemn all the points of Luther’s doctrine, but it did specifically demand that Luther recant or retract some 41 errors within 60 days of the publication of the Papal Bull. In response, Luther burned the papal Bull along with other writings and the volumes of canon Law by the Elster Gate in Wittenberg. It almost seems to me that Luther had already decided on the course he was going to take which led to the break with the CC as he knew that his writings and doctrines and teaching did not conform with the teachings of the CC, knowing also that the CC was not going to reform along the lines Luther decided the Church had to do.

 

[spina1953]

One of the things I have noticed about Luther’s writings is that here is a man who was supposed to be highly educated yet, could resort to the most crudest and crass language against the CC. One would think that Luther was some uneducated person when one reads these writings that repudiate what the CC taught. It seems that Luther had no remorse about using the course language and crude language of an uneducated person in his attacks on the CC and the Pope. Sad when one thinks about it, that such a man who was highly educated would resort to such language when he could have gone about it a different manor and maybe things would have ended in a much different way.

 

[KathleenGee]

Appreciative of the various takes here by all posters. The text I am using from the seminary generally states the points of Exsurge Domine that were later addressed at the Council of Trent, that in the end made the Mass universally the same, the only text to be printed en masse.

I am also in a personal quandry over Luther…Yes, I am aligning at the present moment, still taken back by Luther’s behaviors and statements that reflect more passion than the Holy Spirit, and likewise, I am in no way defending the state of the Church either in his times.

I wonder what great Catholic theologians are out there who are comparable to Luther in his statements and writings. I also think he was later addressing the motherland of Germany, and end up still seeing a partisan movement in him as well as one seeking reform and more personalization of faith.

To edit, I have to admit it also affects my personal perception of Luther. I studied Ecumenism under a bishop who was in the congregation at Vatican II overseeing Ecumenism. The first reflections on Luther were his scruples…excess of judgment and reaction.

 

[Topper17]

I have often heard Protestants criticize the Church for excommunicating Luther. He didn’t get a fair hearing…………nobody tried to negotiate with him, etc. etc. We also hear a lot about context. In order to understand the bull ‘Exsurge Domine’, we need to understand the reasons why the Church found it necessary to take such an action.

**“On June 15, 1520, Leo X issued a bull, Exsurge Domine, which condemned 41 statements by Luther, ordered the public burning of the writings in which these had appeared, and exhorted Luther to abjure his errors and return to the fold. **After sixty days of further refusal to come to Rome and make a public recantation, he was to be cut off from Christendom by excommunication, he was to be shunned as a heretic by all the faithful, all places where he stayed were to suspend religious services, and all secular authorities were to banish him from their dominions or deliver him to Rome. Luther marked the end of his period of grace by publishing the first of three little books that constituted a program of religious revolution……….First there is no real difference between clergy and laity; every Christian is made a priest by baptism. Secular leaders, therefore should exercise their powers ‘without let or hindrance, regardless whether it be pope, bishop, or priest whom they effect……All that canon law has said to the contrary is sheer invention of Roman presumption.’ **Second, since every Christian is a priest, he has the right to interpret the Scriptures according to his own light.” **Durant, “The Reformation”, pg. 352-3

“It is instructive to observe how Luther moved from tolerance to dogma as his power and certainty grew. **Among the “errors” that Leo X, in the bull, Exsurge Domine, denounced in Luther was that ‘to burn heretics is against the will of the Holy Spirit.’ **In the “Open Letter to the Christian Nobility **(1520) Luther ordained ‘every man a priest,’ with the right of the individual to interpret the Bible according to his own private judgment and individual light; **and added, ‘we should vanquish heretics with books, not with burning.’” Durant, pg. 420-1

At Leipzig Luther had made it very clear that he was no longer Catholic in belief. That would have been one thing, but the fact was that he continued to write in opposition to the teachings of the Church. His teaching on Sola Scriptura and the Right of the Individual to Interpret Scripture (SS+PI) had already come to the surface prior to “Exsurge Domine”. Luther further ‘refined’ this heresy in the same year (1520).

As we know, Luther’s SS+PI has had an extremely negative impact on Christian unity. The Catholic Church didn’t so much excommunicate Luther but also was acknowledging that through his actions and heretical teachings, he had excommunicated himself. No Church should have to put up with that kind of rebellion against it’s teachings. The Catholic Church didn’t and the Lutheran church would not. Furthermore, both the Catholic Church and the Lutheran church vehemently reject Luther’s teaching on SS+PI. If a Lutheran pastor and university Professor today was teaching SS+PI, the Lutheran church would oppose him in every way possible and it would be right to do so.

We should remember that the same year that the Pope issued “Exsurge Domine”, Luther wrote the following:

“If we punish thieves with the yoke, highwayman with the sword, and heretics with fire, why do we not rather assault these monsters of perdition, these cardinals, these popes, and the whole swarm of the Roman Sodom, who corrupt youth and the Church of God? Why do we not rather assault them with arms and wash our hands in their blood?” Luther, “On the Papacy at Rome”, 1520

Given that that was what Luther recommended, in writing, it would be pretty difficult or anyone to argue that Luther was treated ‘unfairly’ by the Catholic Church.

 

[Contarini]

I am acquainted with Augustine’s explanation of why humanity would still have needed Grace, even had the Fall never occurred (admittedly, I haven’t read much Aquinas…). I’ve never understood that to be necessarily at odds with Lutheran views of the created nature once had by Man. Adam and Eve received Grace from God when they were made in His Image and given the Breath of Life – then, as the old phrase goes, fell from Grace (or rejected the gift) when they sinned. I’ve never grasped why any pre-Fall distinction matters - whatever the case, Grace is still offered by God and never withheld. Help me understand the distinction I’m missing here…

I’m not sure it is as big a deal for Lutherans as for Calvinists. The idea that unfallen humanity had a kind of integrity of its own apart from grace (though of course not without God moving in human beings, as in all creation, to preserve us in existence as well as to work everything good within us) has implications for later Puritan theology about the “covenant of works” (since in theory Adam and Eve could have earned salvation), for the idea that humans are responsible for our sins even though we can’t help sinning (since we are still held liable for everything Adam and Eve could have done pre-Fall even though we no longer have that unfallen nature), and probably for Christology as well.

I know, I know. The Catholic position doesn’t teach that Man can attain salvation for himself. I wish Catholicism were more clear about that fact (Benedict and, to some small extent, the JDDJ have given me hope that Lutherans and Catholics can find common language regarding Justification). Yet ‘cooperation’ is only barely distinguishable from “…and I helped!” But enough of my feisty Lutheran ranting.

But the cooperation is itself the result of God working within us . . . . It’s “cooperation” in the sense that we must freely assent to God–God doesn’t force us–and also in the sense that the Holy Spirit works in and through our wills so that the resulting good deeds are truly ours as well as God’s. It’s a both/and. Not 50/50, but wholly God’s as well as, in some sense, ours.

What might have transpired had Martin and Leo sat down to discuss the points where they agreed?

Well, how much Leo cared about theology I’m not sure. . . .

Martin and Cajetan, one of the best theologians attached to the papal court, did sit down, and the results wee not good. Cultural as well as theological prejudices ran too deep on both sides, I think.

The closest the two sides came to an agreement was at Regensburg in 1541, where an agreement was reached, tentatively, on justification. The involvement of Cardinal Contarini in this dialogue is the main reason why I use his name as my alias.

Edwin

 

[guanophore]

From what I gathered to be Luther’s “teachings”, were more like a condemnation of Catholic Teaching. And Luther’s language and manner had nothing to do with the tone of defending the Teachings?

Luther’s polemics should not be confused with his religious instruction. I think you will find Luther’s small catechism largely Catholic.

 

[guanophore]

Obviously. I don’t think I ever conflated the two. But to pretend that Exsurge Domine didn’t influence the Catholic perspective at Trent is naive, at best. When the pope issues a bull, everyone listens (unless you’re busy burning it). I’m just saying that Leo’s blanket condemnation of Luther’s teachings was not helpful to anyone. I think it’s reasonable to hold that it was the bull that set the tone for what would become Trent.

I have trouble following Exsurge Domine, but I have no reason to doubt what you are saying.

I think that Luther and Leo were both very proud men, and the major impediment was that Luther refused to yield, even where he knew he was right. Had he been willing to recant it, the substance of what he wrote would have eventually been integrated. But he could just not let the Pope have the last word.

There were misunderstandings and erroneous accusations on both sides, but matters were too heated to resolve them. For example, had Luther and Leo been able to create the JDDJ, the Reformation may have occurred without a separation.

 

[guanophore]

And I question how fair a Council can be when the stated purpose was “the utter extirpation of the poisonous, pestilential Lutheran heresy” (Papal Bull concerning the Reforms of the Roman Court)”. It was never intended to be a fair council. It was born of the same spirit of Exsurge Domine.

It is a little vague. There were so many poisonous, pestilential Lutheran heresies that referring to them in a singular manner like that is not helpful at all.

And, as has been stated, Luther was being required to give up even those works that were not considered to be heresies. I am not sure if that is what you mean by “fair”, but I do see how it can seem unfair to be required to give up/repudiate positions or writings that were not considered heresies.

The bottom line is that the Church is not a democracy, or a republic, or a parliment. It is a theocracy. The Pope considers himself to be the steward of the household of Christ, and believes that he who hears him hears Christ.

The truth of the matter was that the Lutherans feared they’d receive the same “safe conduct” promised to Jan Hus (can you blame them?).

No.

Here are two sources with a fuller grasp of the historical circumstances:

To say that Luther personally objected to a free council requires a willful ignorance of historical fact.

It sounds like Luther did not even trust the German princes or the Emperor to protect him.

I wonder if he thought about becoming a martyr?

I’m not the first Lutheran to say it, but I’ve said it before on these forums: In a way, Lutherans are still “waiting for Mantua.”

Well I have not heard you say it, and now that I have, I find myself mystified about what that might mean. Who is authorized to speak for, or represent the Lutheran communion in a council?

 

[guanophore]

To edit, I have to admit it also affects my personal perception of Luther. I studied Ecumenism under a bishop who was in the congregation at Vatican II overseeing Ecumenism. The first reflections on Luther were his scruples…excess of judgment and reaction.

We need to tread very lightly on these matters, as we have already been put on notice in several threads. This thread has the potential to be very interesting and informative, but it will be closed if we can’t stick to the topic.

 

[rcwitness]

Nope. Our communions have a lot in common. And had actual dialogue taken place prior to or at Trent, I think we’d have even more, doctrinally.

Sorry, I do know our Communions are close and working together alot.

I’ve neither said nor implied that. No Lutheran here has. Luther was often a rascal when it came to tone and behavior. But one would expect that a pope or a council might be able to see through whatever ‘tone’ existed and get at the meat of Luther’s actual teaching. Unfortunately for us today, Pope Leo’s bull didn’t take the time to address Luther’s teachings, only to condemn them altogether. And that method of response carried over into Trent.

My point is that it’s not fair to throw a bunch of accusations, even though some had merit, with a spirit to dismantle the leadership of the Church, and then expect a gentle rebutle.

Who defines what the meat of Luther’s teachings are? He was not like a council who sifted individual’s (name removed by moderator)ut and then came up with a refined body of work.

He was an individual who mixed in some heresy with some truth and good intentions. This is like alot of us. But a genuine Catholic doesn’t just think so highly of himself to demand the Church to adhere to his own findings as though everything from himself is of the Holy Spirit.

Let me ask this… From a Lutheran point of view, why did the Catholic Church ex communicate Luther?

 

[KjetilK]

But maybe if the reformers themselves were in mutual understanding and of one mind and faith, you would have more credit in expecting some sort of better outcome. The fact is, is that division began during Luther’s time and continues still. But the Catholic Church has always made certain efforts in every age to address doctrinal differences. Remember that in Luther’s own lifetime, there were 40 divisions within the reformers who broke from the Eucharist.

Well, and this is one thing I repeat often, this objection stems from the belief that Lutheranism is one church. It is not.

 

[pablope]

And I question how fair a Council can be when the stated purpose was “the utter extirpation of the poisonous, pestilential Lutheran heresy” (Papal Bull concerning the Reforms of the Roman Court)”. It was never intended to be a fair council. It was born of the same spirit of Exsurge Domine.

The truth of the matter was that the Lutherans feared they’d receive the same “safe conduct” promised to Jan Hus (can you blame them?).

Here are two sources with a fuller grasp of the historical circumstances:

1. wlsessays.net/files/BalgeSmalcald.rtf
2. cph.org/pdf/531154.pdf (p.255 or 20 in the .pdf)

To say that Luther personally objected to a free council requires a willful ignorance of historical fact. But why trust secondary sources? Lets read primary text. Here’s Luther in his own words, in his Preface to Smalkald (reader, excuse the bombastic quality of Luther’s personal rhetoric):

I’m not the first Lutheran to say it, but I’ve said it before on these forums: In a way, Lutherans are still “waiting for Mantua.”

Besides such necessary ecclesiastical affairs, there would be also in the political estate innumerable matters of great importance to improve. There is the disagreement between the princes and the states; usury and avarice have burst in like a flood, and have…

So Luther is mixing or trying to include temporal or state matters into the Church council he wants convoked?

The truth of the matter was that the Lutherans feared they’d receive the same “safe conduct” promised to Jan Hus (can you blame them?)…

O Lord Jesus Christ, do Thou Thyself convoke a Council, and deliver Thy servants by Thy glorious advent! The Pope and his adherents are done for; they will have none of Thee. Do Thou, then, help us, who are poor and needy, who sigh to Thee, and beseech Thee earnestly, according to the grace which Thou hast given us, through Thy Holy Ghost, who liveth and reigneth with Thee and the Father, blessed forever. Amen.

So Luther prayed for safety…but seems he did not trust God to protect him if his cause was just?