The majority of patristic writings do indeed take 'the rock' on which the Church is founded to be Peter's confession, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, rather than Peter himself.
Nonetheless, the point bornacatholic was trying to make stands irrespective of whether you accept the Latin papal claims and the Latin reasoning from Peter's confession and 'the keys' to a heritable 'Petrine charism' inherent in the office of Pope of Rome, as bornacatholic does, or reject it as we Orthodox do: Christ established His Church, He did not fix a canon of Scripture, save as that Church, His Mystical Body, later fixed the canon, and, in its members, the Holy Apostle and Evangelists, wrote the part of the canon not inherited from the Jews.
Trusting the canon of Scripture, but not trusting the Church which produced it, strikes me as a bit like the pharisees holding that to swear by the gold of the altar is binding, but to swear by the altar is not. Which is greater? The gold, or the altar that makes it holy? So, which is greater? the Scriptures, or the Church which produced them and fixed them?
The RCC is not The Church.
Thank you for the response.
I understand how and some of the reasons why the monobishophoric system developed, especially in response to the threats of Marcionism and Gnostism. However, any Christian sect which fulfills the above would be a part of the universal church.