Peter throughout the Gospels has a pre-eminence among the 12, despite his repeated rebukes (frequently rendering him, in Lewis's wonderful phrase, "momentary ruin").
In Acts it is Peter who says they have to fill the number of Apostles by finding someone to replace Judas.
In the Ananias incident Peter says to Ananias something along the lines of "you didn't just lie to me, you lied to God," and then Ananias shows precisely what John means by 'moral sin' by croaking on the spot.
In the apostolic conference, while James presides, it is Peter who pronounces the conclusion of the conference -- which produces a letter saying, "it seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us,...".
As to the matter of being vicars of God, IHS says to them whoever rejects you, rejects me -- which suggests what we mean by vicar and apostle -- that he 'stands for' and is an authorized agent of the one who sent him. (See the Easter evening appearance in John's Gospel.)
BUT, one reason this is a futile argument is that, in our view, the non-Catholics mostly artificially excise the Bible from the rest of tradition, of which the Bible is the norm and canon. It is like a heart kept beating outside the body: It lives, for a while, with help, but the whole thing is unnatural.
It seems that the argument from your side is that in fewer than 200 years after the Ascension the Church went wildly astray (except for a hidden remnant, maybe.)
From our side we see the development and refinement of teaching and practice. We see things like the Didache, the letters of Clement (who probably knew Peter and Paul) and Ignatius (who knew - at least by correspondence - Polycarp, who knew John), and the writings of Hippolytus, Justin, and Tertullian (before he went off the rails) as adumbrating the practices which are mentioned sketchily in Scripture.
In other words, using the Scriptures, your side claims to be able to determine what the "true Church" is -- and then promptly disagrees with itself about the RIGHT conclusions and fissiparates into a horde of congregations and opinions.
Our side has it's share of diversity and division, but we see, for example, the germ of the Vatican I definition of papal infallibility in the first chapter of Acts. And we see the early effects of its slow germination in Clement.
The divisions among those who part company with the See of Peter would at least suggest that the Bible alone does not conclusively present all one needs to know how the Church should be governed. Almost invariably someone comes along to provide an extra Biblical hermeneutical method, and the contentions between, say, dispensationalists and others, or Arminians and others, continue to this day and on this forum.
I find THAT impressive.
Impressive is impressive.
There were no negative connotations with the use of that word.
Sadly, Bro,
I still find all that . . .
much more than a little . . . exaggerated . . . in assumptions, if not off the wall.
I do recognize your perspective and I think, understand it.