Can you give me some insight from an Anglican perspective on this Roman apologist's claims as to Gregory's famous quote regarding the sees:
Rome in the early era had the primacy of honor, among equals; this is pretty clear. Even though there is not strong evidence that St. Peter even came to Rome, the traditional narrative in the Early Church, found in Eusebius and others, is that since St. Peter was (as it were) the chief apostle, and Rome was (as it were) the center of the universe, the narratives which put him in Rome were privileged, and thus Peter and Rome were joined into this construct of a first among equals. (We can also add, that it was Peter's faith, not his person, that most Fathers understood to be the Rock of Peter.) This idea of Rome being the first among equals is NOT what Rome has traditionally claimed for itself in recent centuries (although it's changing now, with rapid liberalism). Traditionally Rome wanted to claim that it was the ONLY church; not first among equals, because there WERE no equals. The Bishop of Rome was in a sense the only actual bishop in the whole world. He sent other bishops as his emissaries, without an intrinsic right of their own (this is different from the Anglican teaching that bishops get their commission from God). In sum, Rome (traditionally) used to claim that it had the sole jurisdiction over the whole world. And we see this claim in the very quote you cite: "That becomes clear in Gregory’s other letters where he asserts that Rome has the care of all the Churches who are in turn subject to her. Moreover, Gregory was just repeating the same idea which Pope Innocent previously stated. According to Thomas W. Allies: “But we can trace this idea of St. Gregory the Great back through many generations. Pope Innocent (Ep. XXIV), nearly two hundred years earlier than St. Gregory, and only ninety years after the Nicene Council, recognized the patriarchal right of the bishop of Antioch over his provinces by referring to this Canon of the Nicene Council [canon 6], which, he says, “singly expresses the mind of all bishops throughout the world”; and he adds, “We note that this privilege was given to Antioch not so much on account of the city’s magnificence as because it is known to be the first seat of the first Apostle where the Christian religion received its name, where a great meeting of Apostles was held, and which would not yield to the see of the city of Rome, except that the latter rejoices in having received and retained to the end that honor which the former obtained only in transition.”
Romanists try to say this proves that even though Antioch had the keys in the beginning, assuming it was Peter himself who was the rock, that Antioch eventually lost them when Peter spent the last of his days in Rome, as if they pass from one hand to another, but I'd assume the non-Roman way of interpreting it is simply the honor of having Peter there towards the end of his life, and the honor of Antioch being its legacy as the first see, but that neither has to do with the 'keys' being passed on from one see to another in terms of absolute authority. Am I right?
The issue is not so much where Peter was, but what was the nature of the keys. And who got the keys. Anglican doctrine teaches that the apostolic keys are shared by the bishops, and that the apostles were first bishops as we think of it. All bishops therefore share of the apostolic keys, of binding and loosing, which is why they are given jurisdiction, administer confirmation, and the lower clergy are essentially sent out as administrators of the bishop's work. Peter did not have unique keys, something only he could do. His ministry was to be the rock, on which the church stood. According to the majority of the Fathers, the rock of Peter was his faith; anyone who had the faith of Peter received the grace that he had received.
I searched online and I can't find the letter of Innocent (assume Innocent I) mentioned in the OP, Ep. XXIV. Is it true that after the churches were under seige, Rome became the only apostolic church, and it was through Innocent's authority that the Eastern church was revived? Some say, as in that letter quoted, that Innocent affirmed Rome was the supreme jurisdiction, but I don't know the context and can't find it.