[trad_anglican]

I think part of the confusion here is that people seem to think that Peter was Pope because he was Bishop of Rome. Rather, the Bishop of Rome is Pope because it was Peter's office.

Then why couldn't the bishop of Antioch lay equal or greater claim to the office of Peter?

[SoothingDave]

Then why couldn't the bishop of Antioch lay equal or greater claim to the office of Peter?

I would say because Peter ended up in Rome and was martyred there. And let us not be blind to the fact that the Imperial capital had something to do with it as well. It was the natural place for a worldwide institution to be headquartered.

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

Then why couldn't the bishop of Antioch lay equal or greater claim to the office of Peter?

According to Scripture the Apostles elected their replacement. Why wasn't the last survivor (John?) automatically the "Pope"? (The "Pope" thing is rhetorical only. I don't accept the institution).