The Protestant interpretation of those verses is that Jesus didn't really mean what He said and that when He said He would build His church on Peter, He didn't really mean Peter as a person, but in general on the apostles. That is what I learned in the Presbyterian church 40 years ago. That is why when I say when I take Him literally, that I mean I believe He did establish His church on Peter as a person, as the first bishop of Rome, which I certainly didn't learn about in the Presbyterian church. We were not taught about bishops, priests, and deacons, even though they are mentioned in the Bible. That part was just ignored. There is no way that you can say what I'm saying is Protestant, because in the Presbyterian church at least, the tendency is to pretend that Jesus didn't really mean what He said. That's why you will find grape juice instead of wine at communion, that communion is just a memorial service, and that it certainly isn't the Body and Blood of the Lord.
You're missing the point, "The Protestant interpretation of those verses is that Jesus........"
The ONLY Protestant interpretation to ANY Bible passage, all the way from "In the beginning " to "with you all. Amen." is "I believe (or think)". Or "In MY opinion..." Or "I interpret it..." "MY view is..."
Now do you see what I was driving at?
As one of the Russian fathers put it(and I'm terribly sorry I don't have his name for you), the Holy Scriptures are like the blinding Sun that gives us light. If we look at the Sun directly, we will burn our eyes and do them permanent injury, even blind ourselves. To protect our eyes from the Sun's burning rays, we have to look at it through a very thick dark glass. The Holy Scriptures are the same. If you attempt to interpret them for yourself, you will harm yourself spiritually and maybe even physically as well. You have to look at them through the eyes of the fathers of the Church, not through some Magisterium but through the consistent teaching of the fathers.
Are familiar with the Vincentian Canon? As you say you are an Anglican or former Anglican, I would think you should be. If you are, I urge you to refamiliarize yourself with it, particularly as to the filioque heresy. If you are not familiar with it, click on http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf211.iii.html