There is no contradiction. Nowhere in article no. 14 does it say that the pope's primacy is a divinely revealed truth; instead, that article speaks of Peter himself being made protos within the Apostolic College, and mentions the papal office only tangentially. Later articles (nos. 16, 17, 19, 20, and 21) explain the nature of the papal office as it developed in the Church as an institution that was given certain functions by the ecumenical councils and later ecclesiastical custom, but none of that concerns divine revelation. All the bishops of the Church are sacramentally equal, and so no bishop can be said to be over any other bishop (cf. Apostolic Canon 34). In other words, primacy is not supremacy .

We're not talking about Divine Revelation or dogma (certainly I've not mentioned it), but about a historical fact and appointment by Christ. Christ made Peter president of the Apostolic College, and that presidency had a real function that was passed on in a most eminent way to the Pope of Rome.

I do not believe that the historic Petrine succession (as opposed to the sacramental Petrine succession received by the entire Episcopate) passed exclusively or even preeminently to Rome. Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome all possess the historic succession from St. Peter, and as St. Gregory the Great said, these three Sees are really one See in three places (cf. St. Gregory the Great, Registrum Epistolarum, Book VII, 40).

Thus, Rome's primacy is founded not upon the historic Petrine succession per se, but upon its rank among the many particular Churches, which is not a part of divine revelation. Moreover, in addition to its rank among the Churches, Rome's presidency within the universal Episcopate is based upon the decisions of the ecumenical councils and ecclesiastical custom.

These things alone distinguish Rome from Antioch and Alexandria, and they are not a matter of "divine institution or essential doctrine of the faith" (Archbishop Elias Zoghby's Vision, no. 16).

There is nothing in divine revelation about the bishop of Rome.

And as far as the article is concerned, points no. 14 and 16 when taken together are perfectly in accord. The problem, as I see it, is that you read the article on Zoghby in line with the Latin tradition of the second millennium, while I do not.

Ghosty,

Point no. 14 is further clarified in point no. 16 (and some others as well), and so there is no contradiction. You seem to want to take each point in isolation, while I choose to read the article holistically.

God bless,
Todd

Thus, Rome's primacy is founded not upon the historic Petrine succession per se, but upon its rank among the many particular Churches, which is not a part of divine revelation. Moreover, in addition to its rank among the Churches, Rome's presidency within the universal Episcopate is based upon the decisions of the ecumenical councils and ecclesiastical custom.

Todd,

So what do you assert to be the underlying rationale for the decisions of the councils and the ecclesiastical custom? Imperial/state authority?

In ICXC,

Gordo