What does it mean for Peter's leadership to be divinely-appointed...?

[catholic1seeks]

What would it mean for Peter’s leadership to be divinely-appointed, but not the successors of Peter?

I’m curious to non-Catholic views on the purpose of St. Peter’s leadership and primacy – assuming it was divinely established (Many Protestants accept this. Matthew 16:18, etc. But not of them see Peter as the leader Apostle.)

The Catholic view is coherent and well-known: there is always meant to be a prime “earthly shepherd” over the church. But what are non-Catholic views of Peter’s individual leadership? Why was Peter chosen to lead the young church if Christ didn’t have in mind a perpetual leadership in the church?

Thanks for all references and replies!

 

[Gorgias]

Hmm… I’m thinking that, if you’re looking for non-Catholic views, then you might do better by asking your question over in the ‘non-Catholic religions’ part of the forum, especially since your thread title doesn’t say what you’re trying to ask…

Maybe if your title were “what does it mean for only Peter’s leadership to be divinely-appointed”…?

 

[mattp0625]

This is covered fairly well in the other “keys” thread