I don't understand what you're tyring to implicate by capitalizing rock in this context. I made a comment to another poster that a plain reading of Matthew 16:17 indicates that Jesus is speaking of Peter and not of Peter's profession of faith.
I'll add to it that a plain reading of the verse in context doesn't allow that Jesus is speaking of himself in that verse because then the verse doesn't make sense, as has been pointed out already in this thread.
I've also pointed out that 1 Peter refers to other christians as living rocks immediately after using that very same phrase in reference to Jesus. My point in all of this is to say that the main premise of the article in this thread is, in my opinion, mistaken.
I'm happy to grant to you that when the word rock appears in the Old Testament, it is usually (if not always) referring to God. However, it does not follow from that fact that Jesus must therefore have been referring to himself in verse 17 and not to Peter.
To sum up, I dispute the premise (and I believe that this very discussion amply supports my position) that the Bible is an easily approachable book that anyone with an open mind can read and understand, and I dispute the logic in the conclusion of your exigetical post.
Now, how does any of that impugn Jesus with the Tradition of man? And also allow me to add, at the risk of being uncharitable, that for someone so sensitive to being unfairly accused of something, you seem to me a little quick on the aspersion-casting trigger.
What I have learned from my Jesuit training
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach.
is to be able to identify the parsing of words