Your posting of a papal polemic which you failed to attribute to the source (Catholic Encyclopedia: Pope, The), posting it as if it were your own (which i immediately suspected was not from you) is an example of the fallacious propaganda of Rome as well as the deception RCs can engage in.
The issue of the Aramaic is argumentative and one that continues (see here ), but interpretation must be done in the light of the whole of Scripture.
The verse at issue, v.18, cannot be divorced from that which preceded it, in which the identity of Jesus Christ is the main subject. In the next verse (17) that is what Jesus refers to in telling blessed Peter that “flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,” and in v. 18 that truth is what the “this rock” refers to, with a distinction being made between the person of Peter and this rock. > This is the only interpretation that is confirmed, as it must be, in the rest of the New Testament. For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8)
Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the ancients concur with, while even modern Catholic scholarship provides testimony against the idea of Peter and immediate successors reigning over the church as its supreme infallible head. See here on both, unless i need to post it.
One example on the interpretation of Peter’s confession in Matthew 16.16-19,
Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy; they worked out exegesis at the level of their own ecclesiasiological thought, more anthropological and spiritual than juridical. - Yves M.-J. Congar, Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and a Theological Essay (London: Burns & Oats, 1966), pp. 399.
And indeed, the church corporate that looked to Peter as its infallible supreme head, holding upon this earth the place of God Almighty, which power he can exercise unhindered. is one that is invisible: it simply is not there.
While Peter was the initial street-level leader of the 11, and can be seen exercising a general pastoral role, yet he was not looked to by the churches as the the supreme infallible head.
Peter was the first to use the keys to the kingdom of God, the gospel, defining that it is the faith behind baptism that souls are purified by, (Acts 15:7-9) and by which souls are translated into the kingdom of God. (Col. 1:13)
Peter, who was married, (1Cor. 9:5) fades from view after Acts 15, which was not called by Peter and in which James gives the definitive judgment, confirmatory of Peter's counsel and testimony of Paul and Barnabas, while it is Paul who called all the Ephesian pastors to conference, as well as doing many other things that RCs would invoke as testifying to the papacy if said of Peter.
Nowhere in any of the epistles are the churches reminded of Peter being the head of all the church, nor particular submission to him as such enjoined, not even as a solution to their needs nor as fidelity to him being a commendation.
Moreover, not once in the Lord's own letters to the 7 representative churches in Rv. 2 and 3 is the pope even mentioned.
And in Gal. 2:1ff Peter is mentioned as the second among 3 pillars of the church, “who seemed to be somewhat,” and who provided public affirmation of Paul, but who publicly reproved Peter for his duplicity, consistent with Paul's statement that “God accepteth no man's person.”
In addition, the power of binding and loosing was also given to all the disciples, (Mt. 18:15-19)
Nowhere did Peter refer to himself as anything more than “a servant,” “an apostle,” “an elder,” (1Pt. 1:1; 5:1; 2Pt. 1) and was married, (Mt. 8:14; 1Cor. 9:4) and evidently poor, (Acts 3:6) living as a guest a tanner's house (Acts 10:6: a smelly profession, thus it was by the sea) who would not let even an unsaved men bow down to him. (Acts 10:25,26)
It is no wonder Rome made "good" use of forgeries to supply what she attempts to egregiously extrapolate from Scripture. But which absence at least evidences that Rome did change the Bible to support her.
Listen detective, this isn’t a college thesis.
I present many Catholic teachings in my posts.
I make no pretense that they are my own, specifically to avoid error in my presentations.