Not just having no ownership of being the church which shall overcome the gates of Hell, but as a false church with a false gospel, yet with many true beliefs, Catholicism has become as the gates of Hell for multitudes, especially those cultist who promote it as an object of faith.
Yet distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly God-inspired, substantive, authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels)
As for "this rock," beyond linguistics, the meaning of Petra and Petros is to be understood by how the Lord and Peter are revealed in Scripture as understanding Mt. 16;18. In which the NT church never taught that Peter was the "rock" of Mt. 16:18 upon which the church is built, interpreting Mt. 16:18, rather than upon the rock of the faith confessed by Peter, thus Christ Himself.
For in contrast to Peter (“petros”), 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 so-called “church fathers” concur with.)
While men can argue about the significance of the difference between the Greek (the language the Holy Spirit chose to express the New Testament revelation in) words “Petros” (Peter, or stone in Jn. 1:42) and “petra” (rock) in Mt. 16:18, and what the LORD might have said in Aramaic (and your own appeal to a Hebrew Matthew was dealt with), the phrase “this stone” (“touton lithosis”), used to identify the cornerstone which is the foundation of the church, (Mt. 21:42) is only used of Christ as regarding a person. (Mt. 21:44)
It is by the “rock of this faith” that the church not only exists but it gains its members. (1Cor. 12:13; Eph. 1:13) And it is by the essential faith which Peter expressed that church overcomes: "Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?" (1Jn, 5:5; cf (1Jn. 2:13,14,25)
And linguistical debates never end:
David Garland (“Reading Matthew”, New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1995) contending that there is a very good possibility that the possible “underlying Aramaic” for the “petros/petra” wordplay (possibly “kepha/kepha” in the unknown Aramaic) may well have been “kepha/tnra” – which then separates the Greek “petros/petra” by more than just gender issues; it changes the whole meaning of the wordplay. And this “changed wordplay” greatly advances the (already likely) scenario that Peter is not “the rock” of that verse.Following on what Garland pointed out, Everett Ferguson, in his “The Church of Christ: A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today” (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996), also affirms that in the Syriac language, which is a later form of Aramaic, does indeed make the “kepha/tnra” distinction in existing Syriac translations of the Gospel of Matthew:... More, by the grace of God.
And the NT church never taught or exampled that all the churches were to look to Peter as the bishop of Rome and the first of a line of supreme infallible heads reigning over all the churches, and having the final defining judgment in questions affecting the whole Church, even without the consent of the bishops. Which is contrary to what Scripture reveals of Peter, and which modern research even by Catholics provides testimony against.
. And which never manifestly saw mention or intimation of preparation to choose a successor for Peter by electing a elder as a apostolic successor, much less conveying total supreme papal authority. Unlike king David and the promise of his son Solomon to reign over Israel and his institution as king, (1 Chronicles 29) and the record of his son Rehoboam reigning in his stead (2 Chronicles 9:31) and so forth, the Bible not only does not record Peter�s death but it also does not foretell of a successor or speak of preparations for one. Nor does it mention any apostolic successor for any apostle (even though the apostle James who was martyred: Acts 12:1,2) except for Matthias being chosen for the apostate Judas (which was in order to maintain the foundational number of apostles (Acts 1:15-26; :cf. Rv. 21:14), which was by the non-political Scriptural means of casting lots, (cf. Prov. 16:33) which Rome has never used to select popes. What Scripture does teach is that of presbyterous (see #8) being ordained to oversee the flock of God. (Acts 20:28)
Furthermore, although Rome's so-called apostolic successors do not claim to be apostles, yet as popes they presume ensured (conditional) infallibility as being an attribute of the apostle Peter and for ecumenical councils with him, though this was not an ensured charism, and Romes popes fail (as I do also) of the overall character, attributes, qualifications and credentials of manifest Biblical apostles, in all things approving themselves as the ministers of God. (2 Corinthians 6:4; Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12; 2Cor. 6:4-10; 12:12)
Daniel1212, this is an excellent collection of references for this matter.
I will need some time to unpack parts, which makes for a joyous occasion
Thank you.