It's all there, dear friend.
Mark 3:16; John 1:42 – Jesus renames Simon "Kepha" in Aramaic which literally means "rock." This was an extraordinary thing for Jesus to do, because "rock" was not even a name in Jesus' time. Jesus did this, not to give Simon a strange name, but to identify his new status among the apostles. When God changes a person's name, He changes their status.
Matt. 16:18 - Jesus said in Aramaic, you are "Kepha" and on this "Kepha" I will build my Church. In Aramaic, "kepha" means a massive stone, and "evna" means little pebble. Some non-Catholics argue that, because the Greek word for rock is "petra", that "Petros" actually means "a small rock", and therefore Jesus was attempting to diminish Peter right after blessing him by calling him a small rock. Not only is this nonsensical in the context of Jesus' blessing of Peter, Jesus was speaking Aramaic and used "Kepha," not "evna." Using Petros to translate Kepha was done simply to reflect the masculine noun of Peter.
Moreover, if the translator wanted to identify Peter as the "small rock," he would have used "lithos" which means a little pebble in Greek. Also, Petros and petra were synonyms at the time the Gospel was written, so any attempt to distinguish the two words is inconsequential. Thus, Jesus called Peter the massive rock, not the little pebble, on which He would build the Church. (You don’t even need Matt. 16:18 to prove Peter is the rock because Jesus renamed Simon “rock” in Mark 3:16 and John 1:42!).
Matt. 16:17 - to further demonstrate that Jesus was speaking Aramaic, Jesus says Simon "Bar-Jona." The use of "Bar-Jona" proves that Jesus was speaking Aramaic. In Aramaic, "Bar" means son, and "Jonah" means John or dove (Holy Spirit). See Matt. 27:46 and Mark 15:34 which give another example of Jesus speaking Aramaic as He utters in rabbinical fashion the first verse of Psalm 22 declaring that He is the Christ, the Messiah. This shows that Jesus was indeed speaking Aramaic, as the Jewish people did at that time.
Matt. 16:18 - also, in quoting "on this rock," the Scriptures use the Greek construction "tautee tee" which means on "this" rock; on "this same" rock; or on "this very" rock. "Tautee tee" is a demonstrative construction in Greek, pointing to Peter, the subject of the sentence (and not his confession of faith as some non-Catholics argue) as the very rock on which Jesus builds His Church. The demonstrative (“tautee”) generally refers to its closest antecedent (“Petros”). Also, there is no place in Scripture where “faith” is equated with “rock.”
Jesus did not leave us orphans. He entrusted His Church to Peter and his successors and promised that "the gates of hell would not prevail against it". In its 2000 year history, there have been some questionable popes yet not one has ever erred in doctrine, further testimony that the Holy Spirit continues to guide the Church established by Christ on earth.
I am not illiterate. I've read and heard all of this before. There is ample evidence that Jesus is the stone (rock) referred to Biblically especially in the OT. Cephas (kepha) Peter (Petras/petros) is the pebble.
I think the Catholic reading of Peter as the rock is probably it's first and biggest mistake. Jesus Christ is the Rock.
With all due respect, Did not a pope tell us in ex cathedra that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Chruch, but today that same doctrine is not accepted? So which is right? Help me understand how error was not delivered in ex cathedra if the doctrine is not in force today?
I have no disagreement that Christ will NEVER let His Church be overtaken by Satan because it won't...what I am confused on is how did infallibility get into doctrine...What Church Fathers agree with this doctrine? I don't know and am curious to learn...
Blessings.