Why Rome and not Antioch?

[_L]

This question popped into my head recently and I was hoping for some incite from the CAF community.

We as Catholics acknowledge the Pope, Bishop of Rome as the successor of St. Peter and keeper of the keys in regards to being head of the Church on earth. However, considering St. Peter acted as Bishop in both Rome and Antioch, why is it that the keys were handed off to St. Peter’s successor in Rome, rather than his successor in Antioch?

 

[Silent_Notes]

Hello!

Correct me if i’m wrong, but is the answer as simple as where St. Peter died? Which is Rome?

 

[BluesPicker]

I believe that Rome being the Capital city was chosen by St. Peter to exorcise his authority there as leader of the Apostles. True he went to Antioch and founded the Church there or organized it. Preach the Gospels, heal the sick and cast out demons, here he could exorcise temporal authority in a central location.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

I think it’s because Rome was so much more than a city. It was the most powerful place on earth at the time. If you look at the amount of territory they conquered, it’s obvious the world hasn’t seen such a superpower since. For that reason I don’t think it was a conincidence or a mere question of where St Peter died and was burried. The Church took over Rome as a spiritual and moral superpower of the world.

 

[scimitar60]

Nice answers, but the simplest one would be:

Antioch doesn’t exist anymore. During the middle ages the population decreased rapidly and I think the water source ran out, which made them desert the city. Correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[Alan55]

Early on there were five patriarchs, bishops who headed the five major centers of Christianity: Rome (Italy), Constantinople (Turkey), Alexandria (Egypt), Antioch (Syria) and Jerusalem (Israel). Eventually, the patriarch of Rome emerged as the leader of Christianity (“first among equals”) because of the importance of the city of Rome in the Roman Empire and, significantly, because the bishop of Rome was on the correct side and played a leading role in a series of theological controversies. Both Peter and Paul were martyred and buried in Rome, which added to the importance of Rome.

The patriarch of the number two city, Constantinople, was the second most important leader in the worldwide Church. At the time of the split between the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox, the western Church was headed by “Patriarch of the West” – the bishop of Rome – and the eastern (Orthodox) Church was headed by the “Patriarch of the East” – bishop of Constantinople.

 

[pablope]

This question popped into my head recently and I was hoping for some incite from the CAF community.

We as Catholics acknowledge the Pope, Bishop of Rome as the successor of St. Peter and keeper of the keys in regards to being head of the Church on earth. However, considering St. Peter acted as Bishop in both Rome and Antioch, why is it that the keys were handed off to St. Peter’s successor in Rome, rather than his successor in Antioch?

God acts in very mysterious ways, indeed. Peter was ordered by God to go to Rome (there is an account somewhere) and Rome was the means or the instrument by which Christianity was spread throughout the world that Rome had conquered, and eventually, to the ends of the earth. And, Peter spent more time in Rome than any other place, after the resurrection, I believe…and the Apostles, and their successors, had recognized and acknowledged the status of Peter, and his successor as head of the Church.

 

[_L]

I appreciate the answers everyone; however I feel as though the heart of the matter has not been addressed.

There is nothing about the City of Rome that gives the Bishop there more prominence than others, the only reason why the Pope/ Bishop of Rome is the prime bishop is because he is St. Peter’s successor. Sure, the status and location of Rome at the time helped to expand Christianity throughout the world, but the responsibilities and powers of the Bishop of Rome had nothing to do with Rome at all but with Peter who the Bishops of Rome are successors of. If St. Peter had gone to Athens and established a Church and died there then perhaps we would view the Bishop of Athens the way we do the Pope considering its about who he succeeds and not where he physically resides. So with that said, why wasn’t St. Peter’s other successor in Antioch given that distinction? Sure Antioch doesn’t exist anymore, but what about the successors of the first Bishop of Antioch who was St. Peter?