Did you read the article? Pretty clear to me. Go read it.
If you don't agree with it, I can't change your mind. But, I pray God does. Before it's too late.
Hoss
Yes, I’ve read this nonsense a thousand times before.
“Peter = 4074 petroj Petros pet’-ros apparently a primary word; TDNT - 6:100,835; n pr m AV - Peter 161, stone 1; 162 Peter = “a rock or a stone” 1) one of the twelve disciples of Jesus
rock = 4073 petra petra pet’-ra from the same as 4074; TDNT - 6:95,834; n f AV - rock 16; 16 1) a rock, cliff or ledge 1a) a projecting rock, crag, rocky ground 1b) a rock, a large stone 1c) metaph. a man like a rock, by reason of his firmness and strength of soul”
There is no reason for Christ to Give Peter his new name and then use the SAME term to refer to himself, in a sentence structure that makes NO SENSE in ANY language.
From Catholic.com, a few more clues to your error:
Matt. 14:23-27: St. Peter is uniquely empowered by Jesus to walk on water, and when his faith begins to falter, our Lord does not allow him to go under. This is a prelude to Jesus promising to give his authority that can never fail to Peter in Matt. 16. The gift of the papacy is here assured not to depend upon the person of St. Peter or of his successors, but on the promise and power of Christ.
Matt. 17:24-27: After receiving the promise of authority in Matt. 16, St. Peter is once again given supernatural power to provide for both himself and Jesus when the first-century equivalent of the I.R.S. comes calling! Peter acts as Christ’s “vicar” or in the place of Jesus in miraculous fashion guaranteed by Jesus not to fail.