Papa, Simone (2), called // Giovine (the young- er), a Neapolitan painter, born in 1506. He was the son of a goldsmith, who desired to bring him up in his own business, but showing an earl}- passion for painting, Papa was placed under the instruction of Gio. Antonio d'Amato. He acquired distinction, and exe- cuted several works for the churches, the principal of which are the Annunciation and the Assumption of the Virgin, in S. Maria la Nuova. Papa died in 1569. See Spooner, Biug. Hist, of the Fine A rts, ii, 651.
Papabiles (i. e. eligible to the pontificate of Borne). According to the regulations of Stephen III, made in 769, only the cardinals are eligible, but according to established custom, an}' one is papahilis who is capable of elevation to the episcopate. In a more restricted sense, it admits only those cardinals who are in papal interests and free from all foreign political influence. Sec Pope.
Papacy. We give under this head a historical review of the rise and development of papal claims — spiritual, ecclesiastical, and political ; referring the dog- matic treatment to Infallibility, Supkemacy, and Temporal Powek, and leaving the import of the name to Papa, and all that relates to the official or personal treatment to Pope. In the history of the papacy four great periods may be distinguished: (1) The history of the bishops of Rome from the earliest times to the es- tablishment of the States of the Church in the 8th cen- tury; (2) the history of the popes during the Middle Ages until the Reformation of the 16th century; (3) the papacy from the 16th century to the Vatican Coun- cil in 1870 ; (4) the lera of Papal Infallibility, begin- ning in 1870.
I. Early Period. — The history of the Church of Rome during the first century is involved in an obscurity which is not likely to be ever fully cleared up. As the entire edifice of Roman Catholicism rests upon the supposition that the pope is the successor of St. Peter, as bishop of Rome, the Roman Catholic historian can take part in the researches concerning the origin of the Church of Rome only for the purpose of defending the Roman episcopate of St. Peter. Until quite recently, the state- ment of Eusebius and Jerome respecting a twenty or twenty-five years' episcopate of Peter in Rome was very generally accepted by Catholic historians; at pres- ent the only fact which they find themselves able to prove from the much-disputed testimonies of ancient writers is the presence on two different occasions of St. Peter in Rome, which thej' think is compatible with the old tradition of a long missionary episcopate. Among non-Catholic writers there is an entire agreement that the legend of a Roman episcopate rests on a great chronological mistake. A large number of historians of note (among them Baur and Zeller) altogether deny that Peter was ever in Rome; and even those who concede a sufiScient importance to the testimonies of ancient writers to regard a visit of St. Peter to Rome as prob- able, are equally positive in rejecting the Roman Cath- olic tradition concerning his episcopate. See Peter. Moreover, the origin of episcopacy itself dates, accord- ing to most Protestant writers, from the 2d century of the Christian sera, making a Roman, like any other bishopric during the 1st century an impossibility. Of the actual exercise of anything like primatial or papal jurisdiction on the part of St. Peter, even Roman Cath- olic writers have been unable to discover a vestige.
As immediate successors to St. Peter, as bishops of Rome, a number of men are mentioned by the Catholic tradition of whom so little is known that the ancient pa- pal catalogues even disagree as to their order of succes- sion and terms of office. Hegesippus (in Euseb. Eccles. Hist, iv, 22) gives the following list, which is regarded as the most probable: Linus, Anencletus (or Cletus), ■ Clemens Romanus, Evarestus Alexander, Xystus (or Sixtus) I, Telesphorus, Hj'ginus, Pius I, Anicetus, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephj'rinus, Calixtus, etc. The 3'ears of their administration, as given in different lists, are enfireh- irreconcilable. There is no reason to doubt their existence ; but they were probably only prominent members of the Roman presbytery. The first name in the list which is celebrated in Christian antiquity is Clement, to whom two of the most famous among the works of the apostolic fathers are ascribed. But not- withstanding his celebrity in the Church, tradition is much divided as to the time of his administration, now making him the first, and now the third successor of Peter. It is a disputed point whether he is identical
PAPACY
628
PAPACY
with the noble Roman, Flavins Clemens, who is said to have sutt'ercd martyrdom under Domitian. One of the principal writers on the earliest history of the Church of Rome, Lipsius, who in his tirst works had assumed the identity, adduces in his work, Chronologie der ro- ■mischen Bischufe (Kiel, 18G9), cogent reasons against it. The tirst letter of Clement to the Corinthians is an important document in the history of the papacy, for in it Catholic historians tind the first example of the ex- ercise of a sort of papal authority. But, as the very introduction shows, this epistle is not sent at all in Clement's own name, but in that of the Roman congre- gation, and the tone pervading it is anything but hie- rarchical. The epistle may, however, justly be quoted as an indication of the high esteem in which the Church of Rome was held at a verj' early period. This promi- nent position is easily explained by the political pre- eminence of the city, which was the capital of the Roman world-empire, and l>y the high antiquity of the Roman Church, to which Paul had addressed one of his epistles, and which the churches of Italj', Gaul, and Spain looked upon as their mother Church. There is only one other passage in the writings of the apostolic fathers which is adduced as an argument for the exist- ence of the papacy at that time. Ignatius of Antioch (died 107), in his epistle to the Roman Church, calls her TrpoKci^iji-Ui'ti tI]c dyaVi/c, which Mohler {Pairolo- gie, i, 144) and other Catholic scholars explain as " head of the love-union of Christendom," while Protestant writers understand it as only meaning " taking tlie lead in love." It is at all events significant that in the whole epistle the bishop of Rome is not even mentioned.