PAPACY (OF. papacic, from ML. papatia, Papal office. from Lat. papa, pope, bishop. father: reduplication of pa, an early infantile utterance, supposed to apply to the child's father). The See of Rome considered as an historic institution, claiming to be the head of and centre of unity for the whole Christian Church. The of the primacy of Rome is, according to Roman tradition, to he found (1) in the leading part played by the Apostle Peter in the New Testa ment records, and (2) in the alleged historic fact of a residence of Peter at Rome as head or bishop of the Christian community there. On the first basis is constructed a theory of a divine com mission given to Peter by Jesus Christ, in virtue of which Peter was invested with the three at tributes of king, priest, and teacher over all the followers of his master. On the second basis the Roman Church has built up its practical earth ly structure of influence and power. The iden tification of the Petrine idea with Rome was needed to localize and make concrete the abstract claims of a divine commission. Whatever powers were conveyed to Peter by Jesus Christ were now held to be continued in full measure to his duly appointed successors in the Roman bish opric. Although a majority of Christians reject both the Roman interpretation of the Petrine commission and the historical proof of a 'bish opric' of Peter in Rome, and still more emphati cally deny any connection whatever between these two sets of ideas, the historian finds abundant explanations of the and growth of the Roman supremacy resorting to these sources. Doubtless the tradition of an Apostolic origin was a powerful aid to the. bishops of Rome in enforcing their claims to superiority.
The Roman community was certainly one of the earliest Christian foundations. It enjoyed the prestige of the work and of the martyrdom of the great Apostles, Peter and Paul. It was the centre of life of the vast Roman Empire. and the focal point toward which all ideas streamed in and from which they were redistributed in effective form. 'Rome, however, had never been an important source of ancient culture. Her gifts to the world were law and administration, her culture was always a borrowed one. This same tradition of practical administrative skill was now to be continued by the Church. The authentic records of Roman church life during the first two centuries are few, and many in stances of the exercise of Papal power at this time are not to be found.
The evidences of an aggressive, dominating jurisdiction appear very clearly in the adminis tration of Victor I. ( ?193-203). This active and zealous churchman was bent upon securing uni formity in the outward practices of the Church, and he made the existing variations in the time of celebrating Easter a test question. Ile de
manded of the Eastern churches agreement with the Roman Easter period and threatened them with excommunication if they refused. Excom munication, as the refusal to share Christian fellowship with an offending brother, was the right of every church, but we distinctly see here the Roman practice of treating it as a pun ishment to be inflicted by a superior upon an • inferior. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, himself a Syrian, but in agreement with Victor on the Easter question, admitted the potcntior princi palitas of Rome, a phrase naturally quoted by Roman controversialists to support their claims of right. They also cite, as justification of these claims, a letter of Clement 1. to the Corinthians (A.D. 95 or 96), the epistles of Saint Ignatius, and passages of Tertullian, Origen, and other Christian writers of the second and third cen turies. Whatsoever may be the value of these testimonies, as cited to sustain the claims of Papal supremacy in these early ages, the subse quent fact of a Papal domination is outlined dis tinctly in historical perspective by the end of the fourth century.
The Western world turned as naturally to Rome in religious as in secular matters, partly as the result of the habit of centuries, partly because there was no other resort. Papal Rome met the demand with a steadiness and prudence worthy of the great political tradition to which she was succeeding. In matters both of faith and practice she was always to be found on the side of a stanch but liberal orthodoxy. While Gnostics on the one hand and 1\lontanists on the other were trying to make of the Church a se lect esoteric community of the specially initiated, Rome steered carefully between the extremes and lent all her weight to the 'Catholic' or in clusive idea of the Church, as the medium of sal vation for all men. On the vexed questions of heretical baptism and ordination and the treat ment of the 'lapsed' her position was always moderate and liberal. While the theologians of the Eastern world were speculating with philo sophical refinements over the great Christian problems, the Roman Church quietly but per sistently held fast to the idea of a mystery of redemption not to be solved by any human phi losophy, but to be accepted once for all by an act of faith. When, in the storms of the Ger manic invasions, the weak and cowardly em perors deserted Rome, the Roman bishops re peatedly stood forward in their place and dealt with the invaders in the name of a power great er than their own.