Why was St. Peter's primacy uniquely transferred to the See of Rome?


#1

Ok so: St. Peter is the rock upon which Christ built His Church, and St. Peter established the Church of Rome and was martyred there under Emperor Nero along with St. Paul. I can understand all of this, but what I am still not yet able to really understand is why any of this means that Rome is the Holy See? The See of Antioch was also founded by St. Peter, and so was Jerusalem, why did the office of the Bishop of Rome alone inherit St. Peter's Chair and jurisdiction over the universal Church? St. Peter first founded the See of Jerusalem, and then the See of Antioch (preaching the Gospel in other places too), and then finally established the See of Rome. It seems to me that the only thing Rome could claim over either of these two cities is the relics of Sts. Peter and Paul and to have been the final place St. Peter held the bishopric according to tradition. So why is the Roman Catholic position that the Pope of Rome has jurisdiction over the world due to him being the successor of St. Peter justified over the Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, or literally every other church's position when he is not the only successor of St. Peter? Please help me to understand by providing significant theological and historical evidence/resources for the supremacy of the Church of Rome and her Bishop over the entire universal Church, this is a stumbling block for me in my consideration of joining the Catholic Church. May God bless you.
Matt


#2

It is not Rome that "inherited" the primacy of St. Peter, it is St. Peter's successor who inherits the primacy. St. Peter died in Rome and that is where he was succeeded by Pope St. Linus. At one time in Church history valid Popes were stationed in Avignon, France. The successor of St. Peter is where the Primacy subsists, not the location. Rome is where the successor of St. Peter has traditionally been Bishop because that is where Ss. Peter & Paul died and it is historically where he has almost always been (except for the Avignon years). Early Church Fathers often referred to Pope St. Linus as succeeding Peter in Rome. The Bishops of Antioch and Jerusalem cannot claim to have succeeded St. Peter because St. Peter was still active after leaving those cities. The bishops of Rome were seen as the high authority in the early Church evidenced by Pope Clement's letter to Corinth in which he has no doubts that he has the authority to intervene in the local Church dispute. And by the 3rd century St. Cyprian made no hesitation to refer to Rome as the chair of Peter and ‘the principle Church.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.