I hear ya...
First, one point that seems to be glossed over here is that the ECF's you quoted are clearly not disputing the fact that Jesus is "building a church". I implore you or anyone reading this to dwell on that point a minute. His church is going to be built on something, and that "something" is not just Jesus Christ. That's clear even from what you quoted. Even if it's going to be built on just Peter's confession (and not also on Peter the man, more on that in a minute), Peter's confession is not Jesus. So let that sink in for a second. Jesus is building His church on something more than just Himself.
Secondly, more focused on the point of "Peter's confession" as the basis of the Church's construction: the Catholic Catechism itself says this as I've seen, if not you, at least someone else on these threads point out. Now I would think someone who at least wishes to think of himself as "thoughtful" would wonder: "Why did the Catholic Church do this in their catechism? I thought that Peter was the foundation of their Church, not his confession? Are Catholics crazy?"
That should be the first question but one shouldn't stop there, again if one wishes to think of oneself as "thoughtful". Or at least "intelligent". One should then go to where the Catechism speaks of this matter and see what is said, that would be a good starting place, again, to the thoughtful person.
CCC 555, in part reads, "...Christ, the "living Stone", thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church...." (emphasis added).
So we can see how this notion (of building the church on Peter's confession, as the ECF's you quote below talk about) and the notion of building it on Peter himself are not contradictory. In fact they are complementary. Again, "because of the faith he confessed", Peter himself is the "rock" (or "stone" if you prefer) that Christ builds his Church upon. Both the confession and Peter himself are this "stone", but not that one can separate the confession from the man, as if they are two separate entities. Indeed one (the confession) comes from the other (the man). So to say that Jesus builds His Church on a confession is to say, at least by implication, that it is also built on that same man who issued the confession. It's not "either/or", it's "both/and."
Thirdly, there are other fathers who clearly talk about how Peter (the man) is the foundation Christ chose. "With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).", that's from Cyprian, but there are others here.
I suppose a cynical person may say "so the Catholics pick and choose which ECF to listen to and when, just to fit their agenda". Such cynicism would ignore the point made above that, at least on this matter, the ECF's describe two faces of the same coin so to speak, not that they contradict each other. But also, it would be truly cynicism to say such a thing, to claim it's just "fitting an agenda" to "pick and choose" quotes, because the same could be said of the Protestant's use of ECF quotes.
This actually demonstrates yet again the need for an authoritative body, a teaching authority (itself led by the Holy Spirit), to keep us on track, to remind and inform us of what the true authentic teaching was and is. Or else anyone can claim anything they want about the ECF's (just like can be done with Scripture).
His church is going to be built on something, and that “something” is not just Jesus Christ.
https://www.google.com/search?q=my+hope+is+built+on+nothing+less&ie=&oe=
Sorry Jesus; but you gist ain’t enough!
Isaiah 42:8
"I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not yield my glory to another or my praise to idols.
I hear ya...
Where is this church of Peter's at??? Where's the instruction from Jesus on how to set up this church???
What about Paul's church
1Co 3:10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
Paul was a Masterbuilder and he built the foundation of the church...
Php 3:17 Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample.
Jesus told Paul to tell the people to follow Paul, not Peter...
Php 4:9 Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you.
And where did Paul learn about what he taught??? From Peter??? Nope...
Gal 1:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
Gal 1:16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
Gal 1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
So did the apostle Peter who the Catholic religion claims their Church was built on instruct the apostle Paul anything about that Church, or how to operate the Church??? Clearly not...
In fact, it was Paul who was given the task to receive and record the instructions given by Jesus on how to set up and operate the churches, on how to live holy lives and how to defeat the devil...And he got none of that information from any other apostle apostle...They got that information from Paul...
Peter was then sent by God to take the gospel to the dispersed Jews...He certainly wouldn't have set up shop in Rome for 25 years...That wasn't his job...That was not his instruction...
No doubt that the Jewish population was minuscule compared to the population of the rest of the world...And it was the rest of the world that Jesus commissioned Paul to take care of...
Gal 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
Gal 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
Gal 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
The portion of the bible written directly to the churches in the church age was written by the apostle Paul under instruction from Jesus...Paul's instructions describe the 'bible' church...Peter was given no instruction on how the church was to be set up...Odd wouldn't you think, for a person on whom the church was built (according to Catholic teaching)...The Catholic religion is foreign to the church epistles of the bible...
The Catholic church built its religion over a long period of time while the 'bible' church, the church that Jesus built was established with its own rules in the 1st century...The head of the church is not Peter, nor Paul but Christ and his written words, preserved for eternity...
Do do you Catholics follow Peter, or Mary???
1Co 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
1Co 3:4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
1Co 3:5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
Forget this Peter and Mary stuff...It's a carnal religion...
What it does show is that Catholicism's claim of always having the "unanimous consent of the fathers" on certain doctrines really doesn't exist. Usually when Protestants/Evangelicals here cite ECFs it is to disprove an assertion that the church always taught or believed something - usually something that cannot be shown from Scripture.
Should be CCC 552.
Would you say at this point Peter is saved?