Long read...

Good, good. (say it like the Emperor, you know you want to!)
Okay, so JC makes a good point. I just say, check and see if that is based or contradicted anywhere else in the Bible. It is in fact found else where.
Here is what I found.

In the Greek, (the modern Koino anyway) "δωσω σοι τας κλειδας της βασιλειας των ουρανων και ο εαν δησης επι της γης εσται δεδεμενον εν τοις ουρανοις και ο εαν λυσης επι της γης εσται λελυμενον εν τοις ουρανοις" of Matthew 16:19 SEEMS to make it plural that "I give YOUses" the keys, but go simply to 18:18, ibid, "αμην λεγω υμιν οσα εαν δησητε επι της γης εσται δεδεμενα εν τω ουρανω και οσα εαν λυσητε επι της γης εσται λελυμενα εν τω ουρανω" it is basically the same thing. He is talking to the disciples AS A GROUP. Simon Peter's name, even in the official listing of the Vatican does list his name, Σιμεον κεφασ, Simeon Kephas, "the pebble." Hebrew listed as שמעון בן יונה "Shimon ben Yona" though here in the Koino it is Petros (Peter).
(Does that show up on your computer?)
In fact, though, I think we have gone on to the right point, though this man would say differently. Differently because his point was the argument on Mat.16:18 between Aramaic and Greek (that honestly has very little to do with it, I doubt he is an Aramaic scholar anyway.) He certainly isn't a biblical one. The reason being, if one wants anything tested in the Bible, or indeed even outside it, you must test it against the REST of the Bible.

Satan attacked Christ with scripture, out of context, and Christ defended by quoting scripture back. This is called hermeneutics. It means the methodology of interpreting literature, esp that of the Bible. In other words, you cannot take a quote from the Book and make ANY form of dogma on it, without taking the Bible as a whole. Psalms describes wanting to dash the brains of infants on the stone streets. Do you think God approves of that? No, of course not. It also says that we are gods, and taken alone, Mormons love it. But the verse continues, "but you shall die as men." Kinda damning on the whole myself-as-god idea there. Also, you would compare it to the REST of the Bible. For instance, The Lord says in Isaiah 43:10, "Before Me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me. I, I am the Lord, and besides me there is no savior."

You see, taken out of context, anything can be assumed. In the context of the whole Book, we must test it.
In this case, the Roman Catholic Church (and I am not being rude to any Catholics, as I know some of us here are. I'm just saying here) that this scriptural basis for the Papacy is unfounded when looked in context of other places in the Bible where "Rock" and building a church are used. So for Matthew 16:18, we must say look also please at Isaiah 44:8, "There is no other rock; no I know not one!" (That was God talking by the way) and Isaiah 28:16, "So this is what the Sovereign LORD says: "See, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation; the one who trusts will never be dismayed." And even Psalm 118:22-23, The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; the LORD has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes."

Jesus, the Son of He Who Is, the Living God, the Lion of Judah, the truth that Peter spoke, proclaiming the Authority of Christ, THAT is the Rock, Jesus IS the Rock. This is scripture, riddled throughout the entire Bible. There is no where in the Bible that says otherwise. And first century Jews would certainly understand that. Peter would not have made that mistake, for sure. Besides, the Roman Catholic Church didn't institute the actual "Papacy" until Dec. 11, 384 with Pope Siricius - well, he was the first to use that title anyway.