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!