"You are PETROS (a movable stone) and upon this PETRA (a large massive rock) I will build my church."
No, Sir, "petros" is masculine form of "petra". Nothing more or, with the pun intended, nothing less. Since when a masculine form of a noun indicates a different, and lesser, meaning?
Indeed, the Koine Greek does not have to be "reconstructed", it is, unlike the mythical, unverifiable "Aramaic original", available to us. There is no manuscript evidence of a pre-Greek Matthew. It has also been noted that the character of the Greek is not that of a translation.
..."petros" is masculine form of "petra". Nothing more or, with the pun intended, nothing less.
Petros is only used in the Greek New Testament as a proper name for Simon, with the possible exception of John 1:42. According to Arndt and Gingrich the name Petros was apparently never used in Greek before its appearance in the New Testament. If Petros is merely a masculine form of the word petra, and not a different word with a different meaning, with both words being derived from a common root, then you still have a problem with that little word translated “this”, which also matches the Greek feminine "petra". If Jesus also meant by that second clause to refer to Simon Peter he could have said "epi tauto to petro" (masculine gender in the dative case) "on this petros I will build". But what he said was "Epi taute te petra", using petra, a different Greek word; the sentence going from second person masculine to third person feminine. And then there is the problem of why the feminine petra is always used in the Scriptures to refer to Christ, but never the masculine petros, which is only used to refer to Peter.
Irregardless of all the grammatical subtleties and gymnastics, the fact is that Vatican I claims of exclusive jurisdiction and authority over all the church demands the modern papal supremacy interpretation. So many claims of exclusive authority are riding on so few texts, even though the grammar does not demand it, and despite the fact that the early Church Fathers held views diametrically opposed to it, as represented by Augustine, who can be said to have been fairly typical of the others.
And if all this were wrong, it still does not obviate the fact that even if the text were to apply exclusively to Peter, and added together with all the superlatives and firsts applied to Peter by Scripture and by the Fathers, it does not follow that these things necessarily apply exclusively to the bishops of Rome. Absent any demonstration in context that such prerogatives were applied in the early church's thinking to the bishop of Rome alone as the sole, unique successor of Peter, such an assumption is completely unwarranted.
Cordially,