Peter the Rock / Protestant and Catholic

[His student]

From this verse among others the Catholic church seem to legitimize the church and all it's traditions, doctrines and sacraments.

There can be some legitimate disagreement about exactly what the Lord meant by this statement.

But to use it to justify the monstrosity that has been and is the Roman Catholic Church with it's many un-biblical doctrines is beyond ridiculous.

It would be almost laughable if it were not so sad and were it not believed by so many who are in bondage to it's many heresies.

 

[Aussie Pete]

I'm having some discussions with a friend of mine who is a Christian Catholic, in regards to the following verse:

18 “I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”

From this verse among others the Catholic church seem to legitimize the church and all it's traditions, doctrines and sacraments.

Was Jesus saying that the whole church was build upon Peter and his successors, and so established the Catholic Church as the One church, with the rest of all denominations being "broken" churches, scattered boats flowing astray from the Ark?

I'm trying to figure out the different interpretations of the the verse above from both a Catholic and Protestant point of view.

The two articles:

Is Peter the rock on which the Church is built? | CARM.org

Peter the Rock

Carm.com: The author is making the argument that the greek word "petra" (feminine), meaning little stone, and petros (masculine) meaning unmoveable rock.
"...you are Peter (πέτρος, petros) and upon this rock (πέτρα, petra) I will build My church..."

Later Peter is showing himself not as an immovable rock, but one that denies the Lord 3 times. The Catholic claim is that in the context Jesus is referring Peter as The Rock, the protestant however is making the context broader by what is happening later. I hope I'm making some sense, this is quite new to me.

The Catholic article makes its defence:
"As Greek scholars—even non-Catholic ones—admit, the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant “small stone” and “large rock” in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros and petra simply meant “rock.”"
‘You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.’

The Catholic defence is that the protestant position is making a wrong interpretation of the Greek word Petros and Petra.

My final question is: What did Jesus actually mean? Was Peter The Rock, or was Jesus himself the foundation of the whole church? Is there a counter-argument to the Catholic Article and the Protestant, where does the "conflict" meet its end?

Lord Jesus is the Rock. The church is built on the revelation of the Person of Christ, not on an individual. Peter showed himself to be most human and fallible. Peter himself stated that the Lord Jesus is the Rock. (1 Peter 2:8) Lord Jesus is building His church, not the catholic or any other denomination.

 

[topher694]

Get ready to welcome the Catholic bashers!

Good call. And the reverse as well. It's sad on many levels.

 

[Cis.jd]

My friend however is making the claim that Chepas means Rock, and Jesus is anointing Peter as his earthly successor, building up the Church, The Catholic being the right foundation of biblical truth and interpretation.

He is putting all his heart towards the church, simply from this verse.

I'm thinking, that there must be some way to interpret the original meaning of this verse.
I feel there is good answers already in this topic, but what is the Catholic response? And what would the Protestant counter response be? Where does the misunderstanding/ interpretation lie?

Yup people have made ways to "interpret" that, and because of that we now have 50,000+ denominations.

The important part of that verse was Jesus saying he is giving Peter the keys to kingdom. He did not say that to anyone else. The giving of keys is another ancient term that people used to mean an inheritance or the passing of a responsibility or role.
In every group there is this right hand - big brother of a person, this is a common social norm that can be found even in todays sports teams (locker room leader), clubs, and schools. This same thing applies to Christ's Church.

 

[GingerBeer]

My final question is: What did Jesus actually mean? Was Peter The Rock

The passage says that it is upon Peter that the church will be built. That is not an unclear or obscure matter of intricate theological debate.

 

[Zachm531]

Gods true church would not have
converted others by the sword.

Peter is a stone,
Christ is The Rock.

Christ is The Rock and the Cornerstone

 

[Mountainmike]

It's not a good comparison to argue that a political position (in the OT) is the counterpart of a religious one (allegedly in the NT--the Papacy) and that "key" and "keys" are symbolic of the same thing.

You said something about clutching at straws; your thesis here is an example of doing just that.

Why would Jesus mislead? He often used the Old Testament for explanation because Jews looked for meaning there.

That is the only reference to keys and it fits,

 

[Lost4words]

Its amazing how many people on here who clearly do not understand Catholicism and go by untruths.

Sola Scripturists pick and choose what they deem 'literal' to suit their beliefs and Peter and the Rock is just one example of this. Give that passage to a 10 year old and he would tell you exactly what it means, as it reads, but, protestants etc, twist it around to mean something totally different! Why? Because they dont like the Catholic truth!

 

[fwGod]

Its amazing how many people on here who clearly do not understand Catholicism and go by untruths.

Sola Scripturists pick and choose what they deem 'literal' to suit their beliefs and Peter and the Rock is just one example of this. Give that passage to a 10 year old and he would tell you exactly what it means, as it reads, but, protestants etc, twist it around to mean something totally different! Why? Because they dont like the Catholic truth!

Your denominational bias betrays you. A ten year old or any adult of protestant belief would not think that Peter was the Rock.

Isa. 28:16 identifies the Rock.. "So this is what the Lord GOD says: “See, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation; the one who believes will never be shaken."
Mat.21:42 "Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures: 'The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone. This is from the Lord, and it is marvelous in our eyes'?"

Peter himself quoted from it but he did not claim that it referred to him.
Acts 4:11-12 "He (vs.10 Jesus Christ) is 'the stone you builders rejected, which has become the cornerstone. Salvation exists in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.”

There are thirteen scripture verses that say that the Lord God is the Rock of our salvation. So it would be heresy to call Peter the Rock.

Neither did Peter or any other apostle claim that only Peter had been given the keys of the kingdom. Jesus said in
Mat.18:18-19 "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church,

(now the subject is no longer Peter but the church)

and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it (the church). I will give you (the church) the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you (the church) bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you (the church) loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

This is confirmed in
Mat.18:17-18 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, regard him as you (the church) would a pagan or a tax collector. Truly I tell you (the church), whatever you (the church) bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you (the church) loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

When Jesus said "upon this Rock I will build my Church".. he was not speaking of Peter,
Eph.2:20 "And (vs 19 the members of God's household) are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone."
1 Pet.2:4-6 "As you come to Him, the living stone, rejected by men but chosen and precious in God’s sight, you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture: “See, I lay in Zion a stone, a chosen and precious cornerstone; and the one who believes in Him will never be put to shame."

Jesus was speaking concerning what Peter had said. That Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat.16:13-17 "When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven."

There are verses that confirm this
1 John 3:23 "This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded."
1 John 4:15 "If anyone confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God."
1 John 5:1 "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the Father also loves the one born of Him."
1 John 5:5 "Who is the one who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God."
Acts 8:37 "And Philip said, 'If you believe with all your heart, you may.' And he answered and said, 'I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

Conclusion: The Mat.16 verses cannot be used to establish Catholic papacy which didn't exist until years later. It's an exercise of reading into the text and erroneous hermeneutics.

 

[112358]

Peter is a stone,
Christ is The Rock.

This is correct. If one uses the Greek words in the text I think it clears up so much confusion. "Thou art Petros, and upon this petra I will build My church."

 

[dqhall]

Your denominational bias betrays you. A ten year old or any adult of protestant belief would not think that Peter was the Rock.

Isa. 28:16 identifies the Rock.. "So this is what the Lord GOD says: “See, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation; the one who believes will never be shaken."
Mat.21:42 "Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures: 'The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone. This is from the Lord, and it is marvelous in our eyes'?"

Peter himself quoted from it but he did not claim that it referred to him.
Acts 4:11-12 "He (vs.10 Jesus Christ) is 'the stone you builders rejected, which has become the cornerstone. Salvation exists in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.”

There are thirteen scripture verses that say that the Lord God is the Rock of our salvation. So it would be heresy to call Peter the Rock.

Neither did Peter or any other apostle claim that only Peter had been given the keys of the kingdom. Jesus said in
Mat.18:18-19 "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church,

(now the subject is no longer Peter but the church)

and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it (the church). I will give you (the church) the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you (the church) bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you (the church) loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

This is confirmed in
Mat.18:17-18 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, regard him as you (the church) would a pagan or a tax collector. Truly I tell you (the church), whatever you (the church) bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you (the church) loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

When Jesus said "upon this Rock I will build my Church".. he was not speaking of Peter,
Eph.2:20 "And (vs 19 the members of God's household) are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone."
1 Pet.2:4-6 "As you come to Him, the living stone, rejected by men but chosen and precious in God’s sight, you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture: “See, I lay in Zion a stone, a chosen and precious cornerstone; and the one who believes in Him will never be put to shame."

Jesus was speaking concerning what Peter had said. That Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat.16:13-17 "When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven."

There are verses that confirm this
1 John 3:23 "This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded."
1 John 4:15 "If anyone confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God."
1 John 5:1 "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the Father also loves the one born of Him."
1 John 5:5 "Who is the one who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God."
Acts 8:37 "And Philip said, 'If you believe with all your heart, you may.' And he answered and said, 'I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

Conclusion: The Mat.16 verses cannot be used to establish Catholic papacy which didn't exist until years later. It's an exercise of reading into the text and erroneous hermeneutics.

Protestants may believe Peter was the rock without believing the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility. If the pope was more like Peter, we would expect to see more works of healing instead of Catholics spending poor widows’ donations to cover the ceiling of St. Peter’s Basilica with gold.
Oy! : Rome: The Vatican and St. Peters' Basilica.

 

[tz620q]

If the pope was more like Peter, we would expect to see more works of healing instead of Catholics spending poor widows’ donations to cover the ceiling of St. Peter’s Basilica with gold.
Oy! : Rome: The Vatican and St. Peters' Basilica.

I looked at the link you placed here and could not find anything that talked about poor widows. You seem to have created a non sequitur with the assumption that it is terrible for poor widows to give money to the church for their usage. Strange since Christ praised the poor widow that gave all of her money to the temple. The inference seems to be that poor widows should not have been allowed to donate money for St. Peters Basilica. When I was there, I thought just the opposite. How else could these poor people leave anything to their ancestors that they could point to with pride and say, "I helped fund this."?

 

[Athanasius377]

Anyway, back to the subject at hand. I think the best explanation is from a commentary in my library:

The Greek phrasing of this declaration, when compared with that of v. 16, conveys a reciprocity which can be rendered in English only by heavy overtranslation. Simon has declared “You are the Messiah,” to which Jesus now responds “And I in my turn have a declaration for you: You are Peter.” Each “naming” also goes on to mention the father (“Son of the living God;” “son of Jonah”). “Messiah” was a title which implied a functional role (though that has not yet been spelled out); now Jesus gives to Simon a “title,” a nickname, which (like the famous renamings in the OT: Abram/Abraham, Sarai/Sarah, Jacob/Israel) also speaks of his future role, and that role is spelled out in vv. 18–19. While Matthew has used the now familiar name “Peter” to designate Simon throughout his narrative (see on v. 16), he has made it clear that Peter was a second, given name (4:18; 10:2), and now is the time to explain it. This new name, Petros, representing the Aramaic Kēphâ, “stone” or “rock,” is otherwise virtually unknown as a personal name in the ancient world, which makes it the more probable that Jesus chose it for Simon with a view to its literal meaning. He is to be a “Rock.”24 And one important function of a rock, as 7:24–27 has reminded us, is to provide a firm foundation for a building. So on this rock Jesus will build his church, and it will be for ever secure.

France, R. T. (2007). The Gospel of Matthew (pp. 620–621). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publication Co.

I think one can accept this explanation of the text without making the leap to the papacy which is still several centuries off. I see no reason to engage in mental gymnastics in order to avoid the plain meaning of the text.

 

[tz620q]

I think one can accept this explanation of the text without making the leap to the papacy which is still several centuries off. I see no reason to engage in mental gymnastics in order to avoid the plain meaning of the text.

That has been my opinion as well. Being a rock, even one which is the base of the church, is a functional description of what Peter was. Just as Peter has given Jesus this revelation from the Father of who He is, Jesus gives back a revelation to Peter of who he is. The rock becomes an edifice, as Jesus prayed it would. The foundation that sets the boundaries of this edifice are the apostles. We can acknowledge this fact without proving or disproving the papal development as a historical fact. So to me there is no need to twist Scripture and no need to disavow the history of the papacy. The fact is neither exist in a vacuum. We can see the church influencing Scripture (though this is another historical fact that many refuse to acknowledge) and we can see Scripture influencing the church. Is it that far of a stretch to see the Holy Spirit behind both of these developments?

 

[Brian Mcnamee]

Hi BBAS, thank you for this video. I will try and have a look when time gets by. And the reasoning for their interpretation does seem rather questionable as you stated in your previous reply.
But my friend would say the same as for the Protestant position.
And so we end up discussing on circles.

So I'm very interested in how 1 billion could be Catholic if indeed the interpretation and legitmatacy lies on this very foundation. Why is the Bible so hard to interpret, why can't the churches agree on key verses like this?

Hi I go to a church where the Bible is believed to be true and God inspired all of it which leads to a more literal interpretation of the scriptures unless the context is clearly allegory or metaphor. When I meet others who hold this view our agreement on interpretation is often manifold. These are the interpretations that you come to by reading and noting what it says and comparing it with the context of the passage and the context of the rest of the Bible. There is a verse warning about not being led into every wind of doctrine and another that says to study for yourselves rightly dividing he word of truth and another that teaches no prophecy is of any private interpretation. With these verses in mind you can often identify what is a wind of doctrine such as 7th day adventist teach that Sun Sabbath is going to be the mark of the beast. This is not in the Bible and clearly a private interpretation. Yet many Adventisit believe this because they have been led down a path to see the scriptures through the lens of their presenters who advocate this.
Since this discussion is on Catholics your friend has the view that the traditions are equal to scripture. When you look up the dates that the Catholic church made certain decrees you see that over time the traditions evolved and then become elevated over the scriptures. Look up who is anathema which is a long list of beliefs that will get you on the list and compare that list with scripture and you will see that the Catholic church is opposed to the view of the Bible that I hold. In fact the church history is one of killing those who translated the Bible and tried to get it in the hands of the lay people. The Jesuits were formed to counter the reformation and are like the secret police of the church. Here is the oath of the Jesuits.


I_______________ , now in the presence of Almighty God, the blessed Virgin Mary, the blessed St. John the Baptist, the Holy Apostles, St. Peter and St. Paul, and all the saints, sacred host of Heaven, and to you, my Ghostly Father, the superior general of the Society of Jesus, founded by St. Ignatius Loyola, in the pontification of Paul the Third, and continued to the present, do by the womb of the Virgin, the matrix of God, and the rod of Jesus Christ, declare and swear that His Holiness, the Pope, is Christ's Vice-Regent and is the true and only head of the Catholic or Universal Church throughout the earth; and that by the virtue of the keys of binding and loosing given to His Holiness by my Saviour, Jesus Christ, he hath power to depose heretical Kings, Princes, States, Commonwealths, and Governments, and they may be safely destroyed.

Therefore to the utmost of my power I will defend this doctrine and His Holiness's right and custom against all usurpers of the heretical or Protestant authority whatever, especially the Lutheran Church of Germany, Holland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway, and the now pretended authority and Churches of England and Scotland, and the branches of same now established in Ireland and on the continent of America and elsewhere and all adherents in regard that they may be usurped and heretical, opposing the sacred Mother Church of Rome. I do now denounce and disown any allegiance as due to any heretical king, prince or State, named Protestant or Liberal, or obedience to any of their laws, magistrates or officers.

I do further declare the doctrine of the Churches of England and Scotland of the Calvinists, Huguenots, and others of the name of Protestants or Masons to be damnable, and they themselves to be damned who will not forsake the same.
I do further declare that I will help, assist, and advise all or any of His Holiness's agents, in any place where I should be, in Switzerland, Germany, Holland, Ireland or America, or in any other kingdom or territory I shall come to, and do my utmost to extirpate the heretical Protestant or Masonic doctrines and to destroy all their pretended powers, legal or otherwise.

I do further promise and declare that, notwithstanding, I am dispensed with to assume any religion heretical for the propagation of the Mother Church's interest; to keep secret and private all her agents' counsels from time to time, as they entrust me, and not to divulge, directly or indirectly, by word, writing or circumstances whatever; but to execute all that should be proposed, given in charge, or discovered unto me by you, my Ghostly Father, or any of this sacred order.

I do further promise and declare that I will have no opinion or will of my own or any mental reservation whatever, even as a corpse or cadaver (perinde ac cadaver), but will unhesitatingly obey each and every command that I may receive from my superiors in the militia of the Pope and of Jesus Christ. That I will go to any part of the world whithersoever I may be sent, to the frozen regions north, jungles of India, to the centres of civilisation of Europe, or to the wild haunts of the barbarous savages of America without murmuring or repining, and will be submissive in all things, whatsoever is communicated to me.

I do further promise and declare that I will, when opportunity presents, make and wage relentless war, secretly and openly, against all heretics, Protestants and Masons, as I am directed to do, to extirpate them from the face of the whole earth; and that I will spare neither age, sex nor condition, and that will hang, burn, waste, boil, flay, strangle, and bury alive these infamous heretics; rip up the stomachs and wombs of their women, and crush their infants' heads against the walls in order to annihilate their execrable race. That when the same cannot be done openly I will secretly use the poisonous cup, the strangulation cord, the steel of the poniard, or the leaden bullet, regardless of the honour, rank, dignity or authority of the persons, whatever may be their condition in life, either public or private, as I at any time may be directed so to do by any agents of the Pope or Superior of the Brotherhood of the Holy Father of the Society of Jesus.

In confirmation of which I hereby dedicate my life, soul, and all corporal powers, and with the dagger which I now receive I will subscribe my name written in my blood in testimony thereof; and should I prove false, or weaken in my determination, may my brethren and fellow soldiers of the militia of the Pope cut off my hands and feet and my throat from ear to ear, my belly be opened and sulphur burned therein with all the punishment that can be inflicted upon me on earth, and my soul shall be tortured by demons in eternal hell forever.

That I will in voting always vote for a Knight of Columbus in preference to a Protestant, especially a Mason, and that I will leave my party so to do; that if two Catholics are on the ticket I will satisfy myself which is the better supporter of Mother Church and vote accordingly. That I will not deal with or employ a Protestant if in my power to deal with or employ a Catholic.
That I will place Catholic girls in Protestant families that a weekly report may be made of the inner movements of the heretics. That I will provide myself with arms and ammunition that I may be in readiness when the word is passed, or I am commanded to defend the Church either as an individual or with the militia of the Pope.

All of which I,_______________, do swear by the blessed Trinity and blessed sacrament which I am now to receive to perform and on part to keep this my oath. In testimony hereof, I take this most holy and blessed sacrament of the Eucharist and witness the same further with my name written with the point of this dagger dipped in my own blood and seal in the face of this holy sacrament.

 

[Albion]

Why would Jesus mislead?

There's no reason to think he DID mislead. The interpretation of the Matthew verse made by the church that has based its claims to supremacy upon it is among the least plausible interpretations, and it is one that the Apostolic church certainly did not hold.

That is the only reference to keys and it fits,

I've already explained why it doesn't.

 

[Albion]

.
Since this discussion is on Catholics your friend has the view that the traditions are equal to scripture. When you look up the dates that the Catholic church made certain decrees you see that over time the traditions evolved and then become elevated over the scriptures.

You raise a good point here. While it is not every tradition that has been raised to an equal status with Scripture, those that have been made into doctrine are characteristically of the following nature:

Not actually a continuously held belief...throughout the church...since its founding.

Yet all three of those qualities are supposed to be present--according to the church(es) which believe that "Holy Tradition" is the equal of Scripture.

When they are not present (as with, say, the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary) but the church wants to make some idea into dogma, they are simply alleged!!

 

[Major1]

Its amazing how many people on here who clearly do not understand Catholicism and go by untruths.

Sola Scripturists pick and choose what they deem 'literal' to suit their beliefs and Peter and the Rock is just one example of this. Give that passage to a 10 year old and he would tell you exactly what it means, as it reads, but, protestants etc, twist it around to mean something totally different! Why? Because they dont like the Catholic truth!

That is absolutely the truth. Born again Protestants place there love of Scriptural truths over Catholic traditions every single time.

2 Tim. 2:15 says it correctly...…………...
"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

 

[Albion]

Its amazing how many people on here who clearly do not understand Catholicism and go by untruths.

Sola Scripturists pick and choose what they deem 'literal' to suit their beliefs and Peter and the Rock is just one example of this.

So, if we accept what you have written here, it is the case that both sides misrepresent the other at times.

On a "discussion" board, that fact doesn't seem like a reason for berating the motives or character of the other poster(s) at every opportunity.

 

[Major1]

I'm having some discussions with a friend of mine who is a Christian Catholic, in regards to the following verse:

18 “I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”

From this verse among others the Catholic church seem to legitimize the church and all it's traditions, doctrines and sacraments.

Was Jesus saying that the whole church was build upon Peter and his successors, and so established the Catholic Church as the One church, with the rest of all denominations being "broken" churches, scattered boats flowing astray from the Ark?

I'm trying to figure out the different interpretations of the the verse above from both a Catholic and Protestant point of view.

The two articles:

Is Peter the rock on which the Church is built? | CARM.org

Peter the Rock

Carm.com: The author is making the argument that the greek word "petra" (feminine), meaning little stone, and petros (masculine) meaning unmoveable rock.
"...you are Peter (πέτρος, petros) and upon this rock (πέτρα, petra) I will build My church..."

Later Peter is showing himself not as an immovable rock, but one that denies the Lord 3 times. The Catholic claim is that in the context Jesus is referring Peter as The Rock, the protestant however is making the context broader by what is happening later. I hope I'm making some sense, this is quite new to me.

The Catholic article makes its defence:
"As Greek scholars—even non-Catholic ones—admit, the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant “small stone” and “large rock” in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros and petra simply meant “rock.”"
‘You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.’

The Catholic defence is that the protestant position is making a wrong interpretation of the Greek word Petros and Petra.

My final question is: What did Jesus actually mean? Was Peter The Rock, or was Jesus himself the foundation of the whole church? Is there a counter-argument to the Catholic Article and the Protestant, where does the "conflict" meet its end?

The Scriptures make it abundantly clear that Christ is both the foundation and the head of the church.

Peter himself said in Acts 4:10-12...……..
"Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner." Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.'

Ephesians 5:23 (ESV)

"For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.

How can we can be saved. Only Jesus Christ. And yet the Catholic leaders teach that it is only through the Roman Church that salvation can be secured, due to Jesus giving Peter the "headship" of the church. But Peter himself disagrees with them in 1 Peter 5:1-4 he says...…...…...…..

"The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.'

I love this verse from Peter. We can clearly see that Peter thought himself to be just an "elder" amongst the other elders of the church. Nothing more! And he confirms Christ to be the "chief Shepherd" and only Leader of the Christian church. Also, look at what else he says. No one is to act as a "lord" over God's heritage, ie, no one is to exercise any kind of dominion over the church.
Was Peter the Apostle the First Pope?

It is a mistake to think that Jesus is giving either of those roles to Peter. There is a sense in which the apostles played a foundational role in the building of the church but the role of primacy is reserved for Christ alone, not assigned to Peter.

The Roman Catholic Church uses the argument that Peter is the rock to which Jesus referred as evidence that it is the one true church. As anyone who wants to know, it can be seen and understood that Peter's being the rock is not the only valid interpretation of this verse.

Even if Peter is the rock in Matt. 16:18---- this is meaningless in giving the Roman Catholic Church any authority. Real historical facts and Scripture nowhere records Peter being in Rome.

Scripture nowhere describes Peter as being supreme over the other apostles.

The New Testament does not describe Peter as being the “all authoritative leader” of the early Christian church.