Where does this claim come from—that it was Peter’s confession and not Peter that was the “rock” on which Jesus would found the Church?
Jesus says “on this Rock I will build my Church”—and changes Simon’s name to Peter. I.e., to “Rock.”
“You are Rock. And on this Rock I will build my Church.”
There isn’t a scintilla of a suggestion of a hint in the text that the “rock” is the confession. Especially since Jesus is CHANGING Simon’s name to “Rock” at that very moment.
Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah...I am changing your name to Rock, and on this Rock I will build my Church.
If Jesus had wanted to say what many Protestants claim, why didn’t he avoid confusion by saying: “Blessed are you Simon...You are Todd, and on this rock I will build my Church”?
Andrew knew Jesus was the Christ before Simon did: “He findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ. And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.” John 1:41,42
“A stone”, not THE stone.
The stone that the builders rejected is become head of the corner. Peter himself declared that Jesus Christ is the chief corner stone of the church.
Changing names in confessional conversion is common. Saul Paul is an obvious example.
The church is built upon a common confession that Jesus is lord.
Jesus gives Peter no ecclesiastical standing. Jesus mocked the hierarchical deliberations of the disciples.
Paul and john seem to address their writings to a world of believers apart from papal succession. Peter also seems unaware of his privilege in New Testament writing.
I’m not sure there is a case for the original status of Peter as pope.