History
History, 18.03.2021 16:40, brookeleneewick

This question refers to the passage below: "To the count of Katzenellenbogen, Ziegenhain, and Nidda, my gracious lord.
Pope Leo X, in the bull in which he put me under the ban, condemned my statement that 'to fight against
the Turk is the same thing as resisting God, who visits our sin upon us with this rod.' I still confess freely
that this statement is mine. The popes and bishops called for war against the Turks in the name of Christ.
Yet because Christ taught that Christians shall not resist evil with violence or take revenge, it is against
His name.
In how many wars against the Turks have the bishops and clergy prevented Christians from enduring
heavy losses? Indeed, the king of Hungary and his bishops were beaten by the Turks at Varna and more
recently a German army would perhaps have fought with more success, if it had not contained priests. If I
were an emperor, a king, or a prince in a campaign against the Turks, I would encourage my bishops and
priests to stay at home and mind the duties of their office, praying, fasting, saying mass, preaching, and
caring for the poor, as not only Holy Scripture, but their own canon law teaches and requires. To this I say
Amen, Amen."
*a reference to a failed Christian Crusade launched against the Ottoman Turks in 1444
Martin Luther, German theologian, sermon addressed to a
German prince, 1528
The views expressed in the passage were most strongly influenced by Protestant desires to
justify warfare between different types of Christians
change Christian society by following the words of the Bible more closely
advocate for a German state that would not be influenced by the Pope
show that everybody's destiny was decided by God even before birth

answer
Answers: 3

Other questions on the subject: History

image
History, 21.06.2019 16:20, brasfield09
How did turkey change as a result of world war i?
Answers: 2
image
History, 21.06.2019 17:00, QUEEN2267
Although the three-fifths compromise northern and southern states reach an agreement that allowed for ratification of the constitution, in the long run it had a negative effect on the nation because a) it gave too much power to the executive branch of the government. b) it forced the founding fathers to add the bill of rights to the constitution. c) it was only a temporary solution to the argument between "free" and "slave" states. d) it gave too much power to state governments and not enough to the federal government.
Answers: 2
image
History, 21.06.2019 22:00, michelle230
Which statement explains why john adams most likely supported the separation of powers between the branches of the new national government? question 1 options: the work of government would be overwhelming for just one branch. the work of government could be accomplished more quickly by three branches. each branch of government would limit the power of the other two. each branch of government could ignore the decisions made by the other two.
Answers: 1
image
History, 21.06.2019 23:00, gonzalesalexiaouv1bg
Following archduke franz ferdinand's assassination, austro-hungarian leaders: a. aided the ottoman empire in its campaign to keep serbia under its control. b. executed nearly all prominent serbs living in austria-hungary c. threatened to invade serbia if serb leaders did not agree to a set of strict demands. d.. formed an alliance with great britain to protect austria-hungary from future attacks.
Answers: 1
Do you know the correct answer?
This question refers to the passage below: "To the count of Katzenellenbogen, Ziegenhain, and Nidda...

Questions in other subjects: