Successor of Apostle Peter: Rome or Antioch?

[rosemary2009]

Dear mardukm
I have not got the answers to my doubts I presented.

 

[Deconi]

I have a doubt: whether the Roman Pope is the successor of Apostle Peter or is it Patriarch of Antioch?

This is based on the claim that
Roman catholic church says that Pope is the 265th successor of Apostle Peter and claims universal supremacy.
In the same way, the Syriac Orthodox church says that its Patriarch of antioch is the 122nd successor of Apostle Peter and it also claims universal supremacy.
Which is right?

I also have quotes from 2 eminent catholic cardinals.

The great American Archbishop James Cardinal Gibbons said, "Peter went to Antioch and established the church there and served as the bishop there. What is the authority of Rome?" 
The Major Arch bishop of Syro Malabar Catholic church Varkey Cardinal Vithayathil says, "What is the authority of Rome? On what basis Roem is appointing bishops all over the world? From where it has got all these powers? In the first centuries, there was a dispute between Rome and Antioch who is head and superior?"

Mardukm’s answer is pretty self explanatory and on point!

Dear mardukm
I have not got the answers to my doubts I presented.

To enlarge on Mardukm’s; BOTH Sees can make the claim of being Peter’s Successors and both are correct. Both are also completely authoritative within their own locales.

The only issue is who has authority over the ‘whole’ Universal Church, in which case, Rome is the Seat that has the authority vested in him,(Peter) as his person, since he was killed WHILST he was the bishop there. The next person who ascends to the Seat, assumes ‘the personage’ of Peter, as it were.

The President presides over 50 States, but every State Guv’nor is authorative in their own State, EQUAL to all the others. The difference is that the Pope does not see himself as a ‘president’ over his brethren.

I do not know the context of the quotes you cite, but scores of cardinals and bishops do not equate to Papal authority being ‘movable.’

 

[MarcoPolo]

I didn’t see anyone post this from Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict) from August 2005 on Peter’s successors. Excerpt:*Moreover, Eusebius of Caesarea organized the first version of his ecclesiastical history in accord with the same principle. It was to be a written record of the continuity of apostolic succession, which was concentrated in the three Petrine sees Rome, Antioch and Alexandria-among which Rome, as the site of Peter’s martyrdom, was in turn preeminent and truly normative. *Essentially, the primal seat of Peter is a singular office, and remains with the Roman bishop. The other sees are rightfully successors, but not off the singular high office which currently remains at Rome.