“How Convincing Is the Roman Catholic View That Peter Was the First Pope?” – Rebuttal PART 1

This is part one of a rebuttal to The John Ankerberg Show’s articel, written by Dr. John Weldon, How Convincing Is the Roman Catholic View That Peter Was the First Pope?-Part 1
Although this is “part one” of his piece, my response was so long that I’ll have to make this into parts, so I’m only dealing with everything leading up to and through the first actual point of the argument, “1. Is Peter the “Rock” Christ Spoke Of?”

Brief of Issues

I’ll be citing the original article in these quote blocks, and responding beneath them.

Is there evidence that Jesus Christ established the office of papal authority over His Church? The Catholic Church claims that Jesus conferred on Peter and his successors supreme power in faith and morals over all the other Apostles and over every Christian in the Church. But is this true?

This doctrine is supposedly based on Matthew 16:18-19 where Jesus says, “Thou art Peter and Upon This Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth it shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”

The first problem is that this argument seems to think that there is only one text which is a proof text and while this text does do a lot to prove the Catholic position, it is not a stand-alone text. The Catholic does not treated as a standalone text, but this author seems to think that it is.

But Protestants reject the Roman Catholic interpretation. 

 This is the heart of the issue. Interpretation. Who has the right to interpretation and how can you know which interpretation is correct?

Peter himself tells us that no matter of scripture is a matter of personal interpretation. This begs the question, what is the opposite of personal interpretation? It would be public interpretation. And where do you get this public interpretation? The church.

They point out that in the very passage before Jesus spoke to Peter, He had asked His disciples whom men were saying that He was. Peter replied, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Jesus agreed with Peter’s statement and used it to teach that He Himself will be the rock, the foundation, upon which the Church will be built. Jesus said, “Thou art Peter”—petros, a small stone—“and upon this petra”—great rock or boulder—I will build my Church.” The petra refers to Peter’s truthful declaration of Christ’s deity—it is upon this truth that Jesus says He will build His Church.

 First off, there are many Protestant Scholars who will concede a lot of ground here that does a lot of damage To Mr. Ankerburger’s argument.

There is no distinction between “petros” and “petra.”

• “In Aramaic ‘Peter’ and Rock are the same word; in Greek (here), they are cognate terms that were used interchangeably by this period.” –Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament, (Downer’s Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90.
• “Although it is true that petros and petra can mean ‘stone’ and ‘rock’ respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry.” –Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke), (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 368.
• “Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broke off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed.” –John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), 355.
• “I grant that in Greek Peter (Petros) and stone (petra) mean the same thing, save that the first word is Attic [from the ancient classical Greek dialect of the Attica region], the second from the common tongue.” –John Calvin, Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries: The Harmony of the Gospels Matthew, Mark, and Luke, vol. 2, trans. T. H. L. Parker, ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972), 188.
• “The obvious pun which has made its way into the Gk. text as well suggests a material identity between petra and Petros, the more so as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the meanings of the two words.”–Gerhard Friedrich, ed., and Geoffrey W. Bromley, trans. and ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. VI, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968), 98-99.

Thus simple analysis of the language itself at the very least is not conclusive to the side that argues that Simon couldn’t be the Rock.

Which of these interpretations best fits the scriptural record? What did Peter mean when he stated in his own epistle that Jesus was the chief cornerstone and all other Christians are living stones? 

 To quote Sigmund Freud, sometimes a metaphor is just a metaphor. In some metaphors Jesus is the Cornerstone, or the rock that is the foundation of the church, but in the analogy from Matthew 16, Jesus is the Builder. 

Other questions surrounding the doctrine of the pope are: Why are there no Scripture verses that teach how the office of Pope is to be transmitted by Peter to his successors? 

In the first place, this simply begs the question of Sola scriptura. It makes an assumption that everything for the running of the church must be written down, a doctrine that is nowhere itself stated in scripture and thus is self-refuting.

At the same time, there are in fact scriptural presidents that show exactly all of this. We see the very first thing the apostles do in Acts chapter 1 is elect a successor to Judas, because another must take his office. The word use for office is “episcopate”,  a term that is usually translated in English as bishopric. Matthias is the First Apostolic successor, but there are others, including guys like Timothy and Titus. 

Thus Paul writes to Timothy and charges him, “ Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus;  guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.” (2 Tim 1:14-15) Riding towards the end of his life, Saint Paul does not tell Timothy to make lots of copies of his letters and finds them and distribute them to the churches. Rather he gives commands for the passing on of knowledge in a direct way. And the things that Safeguard the truth or the publicity of this knowledge, being known before many, and the Safeguard of the Holy Spirit. “And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” (2 Tim 2:2)  Paul is referencing for Generations here, himself, Timothy, those Timothy will teach, and those that those people will in turn teach. There is certainly no reason to think this is the Terminus, four Generations.

Why is it that the Apostle Paul never mentions the office of pope in any of his epistles when he teaches about the offices in the Church? 

First off, again this begs the question that everything must be explicitly stated in Scripture, A Maxim which is itself not explicitly stated in scripture. So it doesn’t logically follow that this must be shown, even if it can be, which it can.

Here’s just a couple of considerations, Showing that Saint Paul did separate out Peter as being unique: 

1.  Paul distinguishes the Lord’s post-Resurrection appearances to Peter from those to other apostles (1 Cor 15:4-8). The two disciples on the road to Emmaus make the same distinction (Lk 24:34), in this instance mentioning only Peter (“Simon”), even though they themselves had just seen the risen Jesus within the previous hour (Lk 24:33).
2. Peter was the first traveling missionary, and first exercised what would now be called “visitation of the churches” (Acts 9:32-38,43). Paul preached at Damascus immediately after his conversion (Acts 9:20), but hadn’t traveled there for that purpose (God changed his plans!). His missionary journeys begin in Acts 13:2.
3. Paul went to Jerusalem specifically to see Peter for fifteen days in the beginning of his ministry (Gal 1:18), and was commissioned by Peter, James and John (Gal 2:9) to preach to the Gentiles.
4. Word order and name order is important. Peter is always listed first in every listing of the Apostles, and Matthew even uses the word “first”  to describe Peter in Matthew 10, and clearly he doesn’t mean first sequentially, because others had found Jesus before Peter.
   
   Paul does this, too. Twice in his 1st epistle to the corinthians, Paul gives an “ordered list” starting with himself (the lowest of apostles by his own admission), and then to a regular disciple, THEN Peter, THEN Jesus.  “One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.”
   
   This ordering is quite intentional, and it shows his deference towards Peter.
5. (and of course, Peter corrects those who misuse Paul’s writings (2 Pet 3:15-16).)

When Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom, doesn’t Scripture show that Jesus gave the same keys to the other Apostles? 

No, it doesn’t. It shows a similar binding and loosing Authority, but the keys are only given to one because that’s how the function of the keys works.

This is utterly clear in scripture if you look at Isaiah 22, you can see the office of the key bearer of the king, who is the successor of David. The Kings job is to be away, and Jesus told us the bridegroom we would not always have with us. When the king is away, he leaves ministers in his stead to run his kingdom, but sometimes The Minister’s can’t come to a decision and so he elevates one Minister through a very specific token:  the key to the kingdom. The authority of this key is clearly what Jesus is referencing in Matthew 16, from the very fact that he is the final davidic heir and the one, true king,  to the fact that he repeatedly tells us that he won’t always be with us and that a wise Master leaves Steward’s over his house, this has always been his intention.

Any first-century Jew who heard this would understand what Jesus was doing, even if they thought Jesus was a false prophet.  “There’s that crackpot Jesus, thinking he’s a king, guess he’s making Peter from among his inner Quorum his prime minister because he just said he’s giving him the keys to the kingdom.”

Does Scripture teach that the keys are a declaratory authority to announce the terms on which God will grant salvation, or, as Roman Catholics teach, an absolute power to admit or exclude someone from heaven?

Here we start to see false understandings really start to creep in because nobody has ever taught that the pope has the absolute power to admit or exclude somebody from Heaven. Show me a verse anywhere that states this. They can excommunicate people from the church, which certainly puts that person in a grave state, but ultimately their salvation is between them and God, and no Pope has gone so far as to declare anyone in hell. Statements like this show that the author does not understand what he is talking about, or if he does, then he is trying to set up straw man that he can knock down that look like successful arguments but are not.

Both sides admit that in the first chapters of Acts, Peter exercises the keys to the kingdom by declaring the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles, as Jesus said He would. But then, the other Apostles declare the gospel and Peter drops from sight in the scriptural account. When Peter does reappear, at the Council of Jerusalem, why is it that the Apostle James leads the Church and not Peter?

 Peter speaks at the council and it’s only his words that are recorded, but James was the bishop or overseer of Jerusalem. So Peter comes in and advises, and James confirms what Peter has said as being revealed by the Holy Spirit. He says that it seems good both to the Holy Spirit and to him.

Incidentally, in Acts 16, the proclamation that is distributed to the church, in Greek, the word used there is “dogma.”

The New York Catechism says, “The Pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth. By divine right, the Pope has supreme and full power in faith and morals over each and every pastor and his flock. He is the true Vicar of Christ, the Head of the entire Church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils, the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one, God Himself on earth.”

Here we start to see actual lies or falsehoods because there is no such thing in recorded history as the New York catechism. This literally is not a thing, but you can find it quoted over and over on many different anti-catholic websites.

But let’s give it the benefit of the doubt and assume that it is actually a real thing that is actually written. Even if that’s the case, catechisms are simply compendiums that try to codify church teaching, citing Relevant Church fathers and church councils to explain the faith in a systematic way. The only catechism you really need to worry about is the actual one that the church put out which you can find online at the vatican’s website.

Catechisms, I repeat, are not infallible. They can summarize things in poor ways, though often times they are well thought through and quite reliable.

Assuming we could find this New York catechism, which as a reminder the church is not headed in New York city, so why you would think a catechism written locally for New York would be in anyway a binding document is a question we need not even seriously consider, nevertheless, there could be a way you could read something like this in a charitable light and understand what it means. If it is simply saying that the pope takes the place of Jesus as the Prime Minister takes the place of the king, not usurping the throne but merely holding the throne in place of or instead of the rightful Throne holder, then it’s totally fine. It’s totally biblical. There should be no problem with this.

Jesus tells Peter that whatever he binds on Earth is bound in heaven and whatever he looses on Earth is loosed in heaven – That’s pretty much what that verse is trying to say.

But again, let’s not misunderstand what infallibility is and what it isn’t. Infallibility first off is not impeccability, which means sinlessness. The Pope’s are human, and Pope sin. But this charism of infallibility is also not carte blanche to Simply willy-nilly makeup rules and regulations that people have to follow. No Pope has ever done that. What they do, and what church councils do, is clarified what is valid and licit and representative of the Christian faith, and what is not. That’s why, in Acts 15, the church could meet in that Council of Jerusalem, without citing any Scripture because all scriptural precedent stated that circumcision was necessary, and nevertheless declare that circumcision was no longer necessary.  You cannot find that teaching in the scriptures that existed when this Council was being held.

The Bull of Pope Boniface VIII, Unum Sanctum, says, “We declare, affirm, define and pro‑nounce it necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff”—a decree that Cardinal Manning asserts is “infallible and beyond all doubt, an act ex cathedra.”

 Assume for the sake of argument the truth of the Catholic position. You don’t have to actually agree, but just posit that it could be the case.

Salvation ultimately is being a member of the body of Christ, which is the church, and you cannot be saved without being a member of the body of Christ. This is true because specifically being a member of the body of Christ is what it means to be saved. To be saved without being a member of the body of Christ is to be saved without being saved.

So if it is true that to be saved is to be a member of the body of Christ, and if –  mind you this is if, we are stipulating simply for the sake of argument currently –  the pope is the Vicar of Christ and the leader of the church, then to be saved ultimately is to be subject to the Roman pontiff, the successor of Peter, who is in turn subject to Christ.

This attitude toward the pope seems to rest on that which was stated by Cardinal Gibbons in his book Faith of Our Fathers (p. 95), “The Catholic Church teaches that our Lord conferred on St. Peter the first place of honor and jurisdiction in the government of His whole Church and that the same spiritual supremacy has always resided in the popes or bishops of Rome as being the successors of St. Peter. Consequently, to be true followers of Christ, all Christians, both among the clergy and laity, must be in communion with the See of Rome where Peter rules in the person of his successors.”

 You can see this idea in the earliest Church writings that came from people who knew the apostles in the first century. Thus Clement, a bishop or rome (likely writing on behalf of a prior bishop, as this letter may date to as early as 70 AD) warns that obeying THIS church in Rome is no matter to be taken lightly: “The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth … But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger.” Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96). This is the same Clement mentioned by St. Paul in is letter, and who was appointed by St. Peter as one of his successors.

Clements letter was so formative in the early church that it was actually read every year liturgically in the early church at Corinth. “There is extant also another epistle written by Dionysius to the Romans, and addressed to Soter, who was bishop at that time. We cannot do better than to subjoin some passages from this epistle…In this same epistle he makes mention also of Clement’s epistle to the Corinthians, showing that it had been the custom from the beginning to read it in the church. His words are as follows: To-day we have passed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your epistle. From it, whenever we read it, we shall always be able to draw advice, as also from the former epistle, which was written to us through Clement.’ Dionysius of Corinth, To Pope Soter (A.D. 171).

Or consider the words of Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch, a disciple of St John who was also ordained by Peter: “ the Church which holds the presidency in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love…” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110).”

Given what Saint Paul said to Timothy above, both of these men are in that category of people who are taught by those who are taught by those who are top by apostles. 

The opposite way of saying this would be, “If anyone says that the blessed Apostle Peter was not constituted by Christ our Lord prince of all the apostles and visible head of all the Church militant or that he, Peter, directly and immediately received from our Lord Jesus Christ a pri­macy of favor only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction, let him be anathema.”

Okay… and?

How Convincing Is the Roman Catholic View That Peter Was the First Pope?

Roman Catholicism maintains that the Apostle Peter was the first pope. Yet incredibly, for such a key office involving supreme power over all the Church on earth, the only proof text that can be marshaled is Matthew 16:18-19: “And I also say to you that you are Peter, and Upon This Rock I will build my church; and the gates of hades shall not overpower it….”

“Such a key office” That HAS to be a pun, right?

But I’ve already dealt with this above, this is not the only passage by a long shot. Consider Luke 22, after a discussion of who was the greatest, Jesus tells all of his disciples that Satan has demanded to sift all of them, but that he is praying specifically for Simon that his faith me not fail, and that once he has turned back ( since it was to be the case that he would deny Jesus three times)  he was tasked specifically with strengthening his brothers.

 This denial is itself undone by Jesus at the end of John’s gospel who asks Peter three different times if he loves him more than these, and then the Divine Shepherd tells Peter to be a Shepherd of the flock. Jesus tells Peter to feed the sheep and tend the Lambs and the word used their literally means Shepherd them. Just as Peters being called a Shepherd in no way takes away from Christ being the Good Shepherd, so to Peter being the Rock and no way to tracks from Jesus himself being the rock with a profession of Faith also being the rock, which many people are surprised to find out the catechism actually accepts.  “424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.”

Although for purposes of argument, the Roman Catholic position may be conceded as a possible (although unlikely), interpretation of this verse, it is hardly the most likely interpretation given Roman Catholic papal history. 

Only if one believes that infallibility somehow means sinlessness in Perfection, which it doesn’t. No Protestant has any problem believing that fallible, sinful men could never the last be the human authors of infallible and divine scripture. So why you would think that God couldn’t continue to protect the church beyond the apostolic age is beside me.

And biblically, it is impossible that this Scripture alone can be logically extended to mean all what Rome teaches it to mean.

For Rome to establish its position, it must prove at least five things: first, that Peter personally was the “rock” that Christ spoke of and that Peter’s office was to constitute the essence of Catholic things: first, that Peter personally was the “rock” that Christ spoke of and that Peter’s office was to constitute the essence of Catholic papalism [sic]; second, more specifically, that Peter’s alleged primacy equals infallibility in doctrine and morals; third, that Christ Himself gave reason to believe He conferred similar privileges on Peter’s successors or future Popes and/or bishops; fourth, that Peter was actually the first bishop/pope of Rome; and fifth, that Peter himself and the rest of the Apostles recognized his divine appointment. The first four points will be covered briefly; the fifth point will be examined in depth with occasional comment on other points.

1. Is Peter the “Rock” Christ Spoke Of?

First, does this verse really say anything unique to Peter that must be restricted to him alone? 

Yes. Only Peter is given the name Rock. And he’s giving it the moment Jesus meets him, in John 1:42. It is only now explained here. And when John gives us the term he gives us the name cephas, which is a transliteration of the Aramaic into Greek and then from Greek into English. It shows you that the word that Jesus used for Peter’s name was definitively “Kepha.”

Jesus said, “On this rock, I will build my church.” He did not say Peter would build His Church; He said He would build it. 

This is exactly right, as I point out above, in this metaphor Jesus is not the building material but the Builder. That’s all you need to understand how the rest of this argument falls apart.

It makes more sense to conclude that the “rock” upon which Christ will build His Church is men’s confession of faith in Christ as the true Messiah—something Peter had just spoken. 

 Except it doesn’t, precisely because there is a very distinct format being used in Matthew 16 verses 15 through 19 that basically comes down to a three fold blessing, each part in three parts, the blessing itself, an explanation, and a further explanation.

Blessing 1:  Blessed are you Simon son of Jonah
Explanation 1:  For Flesh and Blood did not reveal this to you
Further Explanation 1:  but my father who is in heaven

Blessing 2:  and I tell you you are rock
Explanation 2:  and Upon This Rock I will build my church
Further Explanation 2:  and the Gates of Hell will not Prevail against

Blessing 3:  I give you the keys to the kingdom
Explanation 3:  whatever you bind on Earth is bound in heaven
Further Explanation 3:  whatever you loose on Earth is loosed in heaven

Here are Protestants Scholars who argue that Peter is clearly The Rock being identified here, so that you know that one doesn’t have to rely merely on Catholic sources to defend this position:

• “Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view.” –William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), 647.
• “Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which–in accordance with the words of the text–applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H. J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic Exegesis.” –Gerhard Maier, “The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate,” trans. Harold H. P. Dressler, in D. A. Carson, ed., Biblical Interpretation and Church Text and Context, (Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), 58.
• “By the words ‘this rock’ Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself.” –J. Knox Chamblin, “Matthew,” in Walter A. Eldwell, ed., Evangelical Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids: MI: Baker, 1989), 742.
• “. . . If, then, Mt. 16:18 forces us to assume a formal and material identity between petra and Petros, this shows how fully the apostolate, and in it to a special degree the position of Peter, belongs to and is essentially enclosed within, the revelation of Christ. Petros himself is this petra, not just his faith or his confession.” –Gerhard Friedrich, ed., and Geoffrey W. Bromley, trans. and ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. VI, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968), 98-99.
• “The expression ‘this rock’ almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following ‘the Christ’ in vs. 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word ‘rock’ (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification.” –Craig L. Blomberg, The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22, (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 251-252.
• “The foundation of the messianic community will be Peter, the rock, who is recipient of the revelation and maker of the confession (cf. Eph 2:20). The significant leadership role of Peter is a matter of sober history . . . . [T]he plain sense of the whole statement of Jesus would seem to accord best with the view that the rock on which Jesus builds His Church is Peter.” –William E. McCumber, “Matthew,” in William M. Greathouse and Willard H. Taylor, eds., Beacon Bible Expositions, vol. 1, (Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill, 1975), 125.
• “‘You are Rock, and on this Rock I will build my church.’ Peter is here pictured as the foundation of the church.” –M. Eugene Boring, “Matthew,” in Pheme Perkins and others, eds., The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 8, (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995), 345.
• “Let it be observed that Jesus could not here mean himself by the rock, consistently with the image, because he is the builder. To say, ‘I will build,’ would be a very confused image. The suggestion of some expositors that in saying ‘thou art Peter, and on this rock’ he pointed at himself involves an artificiality which to some minds is repulsive.” –John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), 356.
• “Another interpretation is that the word rock refers to Peter himself. This is the obvious meaning of the passage.” –Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament, Robert Fraw, ed., (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), 170.
• “It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. The disciple becomes, as it were, the foundation stone of the community. Attempts to interpret the ‘rock’ as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.” –David Hill, “The Gospel of Matthew,” in Ronald E. Clements and Matthew Black, eds., The New Century Bible Commentary, (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), 261.
• “Some interpreters have therefore referred to Jesus as rock here, but the context is against this. Nor is it likely that Peter’s faith or Peter’s confession is meant. It is undoubtedly Peter himself who is to be the Rock, but Peter confessing, faithful and obedient.” –D. Guthrie and others, The New Bible Commentary, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1953) [reprinted by Inter-Varsity Press], 837.
• “There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that He was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words ‘on this rock [petra]; indeed refer to Peter.” –Herman N. Ridderbos, Bible Student’s Commentary: Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987), 303.
• “The word-play and the whole structure of the passage demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as vs. 16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus. Of course it is on the basis of Peter’s confession that Jesus declares his role as the church’s foundation, but it is to Peter, not to his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied.” –R. T. France, The Gospel According to Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985), 254.
• “The frequent attempts that have been made, larely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock (e.g., most recently Caragounis) seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy.” –Donald A. Hagner, “Matthew 14-28,” in David A. Hubbard and others, eds., World Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b, (Dallas: Word Books, 1995), 470.
  
  And again, because we know that the name that Jesus gave to Peter originally was in Aramaic, we can go a step further. 
  
• “The meaning is, ‘You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter, I will build my church.’ Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, ‘And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.'” –William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary: Exposition on the Gospel According to Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), 647.
• “‘You are Peter (Petros), and on this rock (petra) I will build my church (mou ten ekklesian).’ These words are spoken in Aramaic, in which Cephas stands both for Petros and petra.” –Veselin Kesich, “Peter’s Primacy in the New Testament and the Early Tradition,” in John Meyendorff, ed., The Primacy of Peter, (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1992), 47-48.
• “In Aramaic ‘Peter’ and Rock are the same word; in Greek (here), they are cognate terms that were used interchangeably by this period.” –Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament, (Downer’s Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90.
• “The underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (‘you are kepha’ and ‘on this kepha’), since the word was used both for a name and for a ‘rock.’ The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses.” –Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke), (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 368.
• “‘And upon this rock’–As ‘Peter’ and ‘rock’ are one word in the dialect familiarly spoken by our Lord–the Aramaic or Syro-Chaldaic, which was the mother tongue of the country–this exalted play upon the word can be fully seen only in languages which have one word for both. Even in the Greek it is imperfectly represented. in French, as Webster and Wilkinson remark, it is perfect, Pierre-pierre.” –Robert Jamieson, Andrew Robert Fausset, and David Brown, One Volume Commentary, (Grand Rapids, MI: Associated Publishers, n.d. [197?]), 47-48.
• “The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word kepha (hence the Greek Kephas applied to Simon, John 1:42; comp. 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; Gal 2:9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun. Hence the old Syriac translation of the N.T. renders the passage in question thus: ‘Anath-her Kipha, v’ all hode Kipha.’ The Arabic translation has alsachra in both cases. The proper translation then would be: ‘Thou art Rock, and upon this rock,’ etc.” –John Peter Lange, trans. Philip Schaff, Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), 293.
• “But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction [between feminine petra and masculine petros in Greek]. The Peshitta (Western Aramaic) renders, ‘Thou are kipho, and on this kipho.’ The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, ‘Thou are kepha, and on this kepha.’ (Comp. Buxtorf.) Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: ‘Thou are Pierre, and on this pierre’; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, ‘Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier.'” –John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), 355-356.
• “Edersh. finds the words petros and petra borrowed in the late Rabbinical language, and things that Jesus, while speaking Aramaic, may have borrowed those Greek words here. But this is grossly improbable, and the suggestion looks like a desperate expedient; nor has he shown that the late Rabbis themselves make the supposed distinction between the two words.” –John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), 356.
• “Furthermore, the whole passage contains semitic structures. In Aramaic the word for both Peter’s name and the rock would be identical, Kepha’ . . . kepha’.” –James B. Shelton, letter to the authors, 21 October 1994, 1, in Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and Rev. Mr. David Hess, Jesus, Peter, and the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy, (Goleta, CA: Queenship, 1996), 21.
• “PETER (Gr. Petros). Simon Peter, the most prominent of Jesus’ twelve disciples. Peter’s original name was Simon (Aram. sim’on, represented in Greek by Simon and Symeon). Jesus gave him the Aramaic name kepha “rock” (Matt. 16:18); Luke 6:14 par.; John 1:42), which is in Greek both transliterated (Kephas; Eng. Cephas) and translated (Petros).” –Allen C. Myers, ed., The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 818.
• “Rock (Aram. Kepha). This is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times. On building on a rock, or from a rock, cf. Isa 51:1ff.; Matt 8:24f. Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community (cf. I will build). Jesus, not quoting the OT, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word which would serve his purpose.” –W. F. Albright, and C. S. Mann, The Anchor Bible: Matthew, (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971), 195.
• “On the other hand, only the fairly assured Aramaic original of the saying enables us to assert with confidence the formal and material identity between petra and Petros: petra = kepha = Petros.” –Gerhard Friedrich, ed., and Geoffrey W. Bromley, trans. and ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 6, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968), 98-99.
• “The play on words in [Mat 16] verse 18 indicates the Aramaic origin of the passage.” –Suzanne de Dietrich, The Layman’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, vol. 16, trans. Donald G. Miller, (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1961), 93.
• “On this rock I will build my church: the word-play goes back to Aramaic tradition.” –David Hill, “The Gospel of Matthew,” in Ronald E. Clements and Matthew Black, eds., The New Century Bible Commentary, (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), 261.
• “The feminine word for rock, petra, is necessarily changed to the masculine petros to give a man’s name, but the word-play is unmistakable (and in Aramaic would be even more so, as the same form kepha would be occur in both places) . . . .” –R. T. France, The Gospel According to Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985), 254.
• “The natural reading of the passage [Mat 16:18], despite the necessary shift from Petros to petra required by the word play in the Greek (but not the Aramaic, where the same word kepha occurs in both places), is that it is Peter who is the rock upon which the church is to be built (thus rightly Morris, France, Carson, Blomberg, Cullman [Peter, 207], Davies-Allison; so too the interconfessional volume by Brown, Donfried, and Reumann [Peter in the NT, 92]).” –Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14-28, in David A. Hubbard and others, eds., World Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b, (Dallas: Word Books, 1995), 470.

Personal confessions in so profound a truth as Jesus’ Messiahship—with all its personal and doctrinal implications—may certainly be described as something foundational, or rock (boulder)-like. So, this interpretation not only fits the context of the passage, it fits the facts of history and Scripture as a whole. If so, then verse 19 would also not be restricted to Peter alone, who first used these “keys” to open the “kingdom of heaven” to both Jew and Gentile alike in his preaching of the gospel (Acts 2, 10—something possible for every Christian believer.

Except, again, this is missing the actual symbolism of the keys, and it’s trying to write into scripture something that is not in scripture. Scripture records Jesus specifically giving this to Peter alone, even though two chapters later it recorded a similar Authority being given to the other 12. A similar Authority being given to the other 12 without the key squares perfectly with the biblical model of the head steward.

Regardless, if indeed Jesus was establishing Peter as the first pope, it is incredible that neither Peter himself, nor Paul, nor any other apostle—and not one of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament—affirms the doctrine of papalism anywhere. Indeed, it is the absence of such a doctrine that is striking.

It is no more absent than the concept that everything that Christians Must Believe should be explicitly found in the New Testament.

Such a concept is utterly foreign to scripture and can be proven to be a false Doctrine from the simple fact that scripture itself does not give you the list of books that belong in Scripture. That knowledge flows from tradition and either that tradition is fallible or it is infallible.

For example, both Mark and Luke record Peter’s confession of faith in Christ as Messiah, but they do not record Christ’s words about the rock. 

This argument is this: “Oh, sure, scripture states exactly what you need to base your position on, but it only States at once, not twice or Thrice. 

The Apostle John does not mention the inci­dent at all, something unlikely for one who was so close to Jesus and also a good friend of Peter’s.

Or, Again, you can listen to John’s disciple, Ignatius, was the bishop of Antioch, and Who was appointed Bishop of Antioch by Saint Peter, who speaks of the Church of Rome is holding the presidency. You don’t need to go beyond that, this is someone discipled by an apostle.

If the words of Jesus had the significance Rome attaches to them, all this is certainly a strange omission. 

 It is only a strange Omission if you think that everything must be written explicitly in the scriptures, a maxim, again, which is not explicitly in the scriptures. Or even alluded to.

For Christ to establish Peter as the first Pope and living head of the Church and for three of four biographers of Jesus to remain silent on so crucial an event is unlikely to say the least:

 But that’s just the thing, the apostles and the apostolic men writing the New Testament scriptures are not silent on this. And neither is history.

It must involve some very elaborate armchair gymnastics to prove from the Bible that the Lord Jesus appointed Peter to be the first pope, thus establishing the papal throne. If anything, the very fact that the Lord appointed twelve apostles is itself good reason to cast doubts upon the whole idea of one, and only one, pope…. 

Why? Seriously, why? That’s like saying the fact that the King has a cabinet of ministers precludes him from giving authority to one Minister above the others. That is the parallel example in scripture of what Jesus is doing with the apostles and with Peter, from the wording of the authority of binding and loosing and the Very imagery of the key itself.

If the Lord Jesus Christ had intended to establish the supreme authority of Peter, and to have that authority perpetuated in the bishops at Rome, then it is only reasonable to assume that He would have distinctly informed His followers. 

 Again, this is making an unreasonable assumption that everything is explicitly stated in scripture, which is not stated in Scripture

So important an office would surely have been mentioned in the clearest of terms. 

 oh, but it was. Remember the whole keys to the kingdom? Remember the whole binding and loosing Authority? Remember Matthew calling Peter first amongst the apostles? Remember Jesus praying specifically for Peter? How about this:  Peter’s name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together: 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon, and 6 as Cephas). John is next in frequency with only 48 appearances, and Peter is present 50% of the time we find John in the Bible! Archbishop Fulton Sheen reckoned that all the other disciples combined were mentioned 130 times. If this is correct, Peter is named a remarkable 60% of the time any disciple is referred to!

Other sacred offices are set forth in Holy Scripture, yet strange silence prevails with regard to that which would be the highest of all. There is not one jot or tittle, anywhere from Genesis to Revelation, about any man being a regal-sacerdotal king, who as viceregerent of Christ rules over the visible Church upon the earth.[3]

Yeah…no. I’ve just demonstrated repeatedly places you can find Peter and his authority in Scripture

Further, Peter may have given us his own commentary on Matthew 16:18. He refers to Jesus alone as “the living Stone” and the “precious cornerstone.”

Again, the author keeps confusing his metaphors. And if you look at 1st Peter 2, we are all living stones, but that doesn’t mean that some people are not Apostles or Bishops or priests or Deacons. “As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, 5 you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” (1 Peter 2:4-5)

There are times when Jesus is the foundation in the metaphor, and there are times when the apostles are the metaphor, cf:  “the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.” (Eph 2:20)

 If the Stone is Jesus, then men— including Peter—must be something less than the Stone itself. 

I just quoted this exact passage and Peter calls us all living stones

It was Jesus who designated Peter (petros) as a “rock” (petra) and Peter classifies himself and all other believers as one of the lesser “living stones” being built into a holy priesthood (1 Pet. 2:4-6). In essence, if Peter were really the first pope (with all that implies in Roman Catholic teaching), why does not a single New Testament writer ever designate his papal office anywhere? 

See all previous answers

THIS CONCLULDES PART ONE. I WILL TRY TO PRODUCE PART TWO IN THE NEAR FUTURE, BUT THIS WAS LLLLOOOOOONNNNNGGGGG!