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

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!

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… :shrug:

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

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

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.