Well, you're in trouble now. ;-)
I just don't accept the argument that Peter's authority is transferred to the Bishop of Rome.
The reference to the keys is usually thought to be a reference to Isaiah 22:22, which refers to the office of "grand vizier" or chamberlain in the Davidic monarchy. That office certainly had a succession (it was not a one-time deal; there was always a grand vizier).
So, if you use the analogy, that would mean that the Petrine office has succession, too. If it's not in Rome, where is it?
"Petrine Authority" is indisputable. Certainly Peter was granted a specific measure of apostolic authority towards the extension of the New Testament Church.
What cannot possibly be established is Petrine Supremacy.
AT the end of the day, the Acts of the Apostles records that Apostle James (NOT PETER) "pronounced Judgment" for the Jerusalem Council, and that Peter "was afraid of the Men of James".
No Petrine Papacy to be found there, or in any other New Testament Record of the organization of the New Testament Church.