Nice try. It's so funny how the protestants take Romans at face value but when it comes to this pesky little verse they come up with the most elaborate explanation of why this does not mean that Christ granted special authority to Peter. That Authority comes down to us through apostolic succession via the line of Popes going all the way back to Peter. Peter's chair still retains that authority whether you recognize it or not.
I don't have my references handy, but I recall a seminar I attended where these verses were examined in the Greek and through other contextual verses.
The jist of it was that the form of petra that is used for Peter is better translated small rock or pebble. And Peter was blown about...strong, upfront, fighting man one day, denying Christ 3-6 times another. Sort of unstable.
The idea was that Jesus said that you are Peter (small pebble, unstable) but upon THIS rock (petros- large stone foundation) (as Jesus points to himself) I will build my church.
Subsequently in Acts we see Peter still shaky. One day he's proclaiming the Gospel to the Gentiles, later he's essentially retracting some of that 'saved by grace' stuff and backstabbing Paul.
I really don't care one way or another if someone wants to have Peter as the first pope, but I do care about trying to interpret the Bible accurately and precisely.
It makes more sense to me that Jesus would build his church on himself and not on Peter, and I think that is what the scripture teaches even if Tradition doesn't.
I don't take Paul at face value, whatever that means. I also didn't address the contention that it was a verse annointing Peter as the apostle's specisl leader. You asked what the verse meant and I told you. Scripture wasn't written for a few. It was written for all.
"Peter's chair still retains that authority whether you recognize it or not."
You're welcome to believe whatever you want.