Final answer:
The document challenges the church's authority, suggesting secular power is equally important in the Christian body and addresses the situation of the church's power in a historical context. It implies a period of reformation or conflict and likely serves a persuasive role in redefining power dynamics.
Step-by-step explanation:
The orders given in the passage seem to reference a challenge to the conventional understanding of ecclesiastical law, implying that the church's power should not overshadow secular or 'temporal' power. This document suggests a situation where the church is seen as exercising an 'arrogance' not sanctioned by scripture or Christian doctrine, leading to a re-examination of the church's role and authority.
When the individual wrote the document, it appears there was a significant questioning of the Church's authority, potentially during times of reformation or conflict between secular and ecclesiastical powers. The reference to intimidation or distress might imply that the document was produced under pressure or in a context where the author or authors were responding to or in fear of the church's power.
The document was likely written either to persuade or to set forth a new understanding of the relationship between the church and secular authorities, which would imply momentous shifts in political and religious thought at the time. The document refers to broader historical contexts such as Inquisition and mentions other forms of governance like the kurultai and documents like the Magna Carta to underscore its points.