First of all NOTHING in scripture has ANYTHING to do with the way the Catholic Church has twisted the meaning of either of those verses.
If I can't accept Catholic views as to "upon this rock," can I accept what many Protestant writers now accept? Here's a sampling of some critical commentary on this point:
Here's a sample of some of the non-Catholic commentary on this point:
Jesus now sums up Peter's significance in a name, Peter . . . It describes not so much Peter's character (he did not prove to be 'rock-like' in terms of stability or reliability), but his function, as the foundation-stone of Jesus' church. The feminine word for 'rock', 'petra', is necessarily changed to the masculine 'petros' (stone) to give a man's name, but the word-play is unmistakable (and in Aramaic would be even more so, as the same form 'kepha' would occur in both places).
(R.T. France (Anglican); in Morris, Leon, Gen. ed., Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press / Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1985, vol. 1: Matthew, 254, 256)
On the basis of the distinction between 'petros' . . . and 'petra' . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere 'stone,' it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the 'rock' . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken 'rock' to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . .
The Greek makes the distinction between 'petros' and 'petra' simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine 'petra' could not very well serve as a masculine name . . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been 'lithos' ('stone' of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun - and that is just the point! . . .
In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .
D.A. Carson (Baptist); in Gaebelein, Frank E., Gen. ed., Expositor's Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984, vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368
Though in the past some authorities have considered that the term rock refers to Jesus himself or to Peter's faith, the consensus of the great majority of scholars today is that the most obvious and traditional understanding should be construed, namely, that rock refers to the person of Peter.
(Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1985 edition, "Peter," Micropedia, vol. 9, 330-333. D. W. O'Connor, the author of the article, is himself Protestant and author of Peter in Rome: The Literary, Liturgical and Archaeological Evidence [1969] )
Some interpreters have . . . referred to Jesus as the rock here, but the context is against this. Nor is it likely that Peter's faith or Peter's confession is meant. It is undoubtedly Peter himself who is to be the rock, but Peter confessing, faithful and obedient . . . The leading role which Peter played is shown throughout the early chapters of Acts.
(New Bible Commentary, Guthrie, D. & J.A. Motyer, eds., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 3rd ed., 1970 [Reprinted, 1987, as The Eerdmans Bible Commentary], 837)
In view of the background of verse 19 . . . one must dismiss as confessional interpretation [i.e., biased by denominational views] any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the Messianic confession of Peter . . . The general sense of the passage is indisputable . . . Peter is the rock on which the new community will be built, and in that community, Peter's authority to 'bind' or 'release' will be a carrying out of decisions made in heaven. His teaching and disciplinary activities will be similarly guided by the Spirit to carry out Heaven's will.
(William F. Albright [Methodist] and C.S. Mann, Anchor Bible, Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971, vol. 26, 195, 197-198)
Protestants are learning that the crucial passage in Matthew 16 about the 'rock' on which the church will be built almost certainly refers to Peter himself rather than to his faith.
Robert McAfee Brown, in McCord, Peter J., ed., A Pope For All Christians?, NY: Paulist Press, 1976, Introduction, 7.
Precisely because of the Aramaic identity of 'Kepha'/'kepha', there can be no doubt that the rock on which the church was to be built was Peter. Is this true also for Matthew in whose Greek there is the slight difference 'Petros'/'petra'? Probably the most common view would be that it is . . . It would be pointless to list all the commentaries holding this view, but it is found in [a] popular one-volume commentary . . .
K. Stendahl in Peake's Commentary on the Bible (2nd rev. ed.; London: Nelson, 1962), p. 787.
The word refers neither to Christ as a rock, distinguished from Simon, a stone, nor to Peter's confession, but to Peter himself, . . . The reference of petra to Christ is forced and unnatural. The obvious reference of the word is to Peter. The emphatic this naturally refers to the nearest antecedent ; and besides, the metaphor is thus weakened, since Christ appears here, not as the foundation, but as the architect: "On this rock will I build." Again, Christ is the great foundation, the chief cornerstone, but the New Testament writers recognize no impropriety in applying to the members of Christ's church certain terms which are applied to him. For instance, Peter himself (1 Peter 2:4), calls Christ a living stone, and in ver. 5, addresses the church as living stones . . .
Equally untenable is the explanation which refers petra to Simon's confession. Both the play upon the words and the natural reading of the passage are against it, and besides, it does not conform to the fact, since the church is built, not on confessions, but on confessors - living men . . . . . .
The reference to Simon himself is confirmed by the actual relation of Peter to the early church . . . See Acts 1:15; 2:14,37; 3:2; 4:8; 5:15,29; 9:34,40; 10:25-6; Galatians 1:18.
Word Studies in the New Testament, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1946 [orig. 1887], 4 vols., vol. 1, 91-92.
What Jesus speaks of, however, is not merely building his Church, but building it "on this rock." What does it mean when he declares, "You are Peter (Greek Petros), and on this rock (Greek petra) I will build my Church"? Many volumes have been written dealing with the interpretation of this important passage; 3 the space available here allows only a brief discussion of its meaning. The play on words in the Greek text of Matthew's Gospel (between the proper name Petros meaning "Rock" and the ordinary word petra meaning "a rock, a stone") is even closer in Aramaic, the mother-tongue of Jesus and his disciples. In Aramaic the same word kepha' serves as a proper name ("Cephas") and also means "a rock, a stone." Therefore, Jesus' conversation with Peter would have continued as follows: "And I tell you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha' I will build my Church." The obvious meaning of this surely is that Peter is the rock on which Jesus will build his Church. Source
Bruce Metzger, Prof. New Testament Studies, Princeton Theological Seminary.
(Source (other than Metzger quote): Jesus, Peter, and the Keys, by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and David Hess, Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Pub. Co., 1996, pp. 215-279. )
So Catholics are supposedly twisting things in order to get "upon this rock" to refer to Peter? Yet here are all these non-Catholic (Protestant) commentators advancing the same points I and other Catholics have been making -- the Aramaic origin, the word-play between Peter and Jesus's designation ("rock"), that "this" refers to the nearest antecedent noun (Peter), the natural grammatical read of the sentence, etc.
Now, these commentators obviously don't agree with Catholics on the future ecclesiastical implications of Peter being called "rock" in this passage. But they all agree that Peter is indeed the "rock" upon which the church will be built.
The "twisting" argument fails.
Now, will the response to this be the usual crickets? Or one or more persons with far lesser credentials in exegesis exalting their superior knowledge? Either will be amusing.