The Rock - Third Person

[corrgc]

Greetings Christians!

From Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics by Ron Rhodes

On Peter being the Rock:

…whenever Peter is referred to in this passage (Matthew 16) it is in the second person (“you”), but “this rock” is in the third person (verse 18).

Ron does not elaborate on the argument. Have any of you heard this one before? Can anyone elaborate on how this is used to disprove the historical teaching?

Sincerely in Christ,
Corrgc

 

[Monica4316]

check out this link on the linguistics davidmacd.com/catholic/pope_peter_rock.htm

also so many early Church Fathers spoke of Peter being ‘the rock’. They were very clear about that. I’ve read many such quotes such as:

“Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).

“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

“[Simon Peter said to Simon Magus in Rome:] ‘For you now stand in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church’ [Matt. 16:18]” (Clementine Homilies 17:19 [A.D. 221]).

“Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’ [Matt. 14:31]” (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

“There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering” (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]).

“[Jesus said:] ‘Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples’” (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).

“You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas ‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

“It is to Peter that he says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18]. Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church is, no death is there, but life eternal” (Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David 40:30 [A.D. 389]).*

 

[Monica4316]

“Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has not been placed at the forefront [of the churches] by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. … In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found” (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).

“Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome], said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).

“Steadfast in the fear of God, and in faith immovable, upon [Patrick] as upon Peter the [Irish] church is built; and he has been allotted his apostleship by God; against him the gates of hell prevail not” (Hymn in Praise of St. Patrick 3 [A.D. 444]).

“Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles. . . . He wished him who had been received into partnership in his undivided unity to be named what he himself was, when he said: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18], that the building of the eternal temple might rest on Peter’s solid rock, strengthening his Church so surely that neither could human rashness assail it nor the gates of hell prevail against it” (Letters 10:1 [A.D. 445]).

“Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod, together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, has stripped him [Dioscorus] of the episcopate” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 451]).

 

[corrgc]

Thank you Monica.

The author will probably not “allow” appeals to un-inspired writers of anitiquity and the link provided did not address specifically first person vs second person.

Is this a novel argument? Grammatically speaking, how is this argument wrong?

Sincerely in Christ,
Corrgc

 

[FightingFat]

The grammatical argument is pure misdirection. Look to the argument as it appear in Scripture. Luke, Mark and Paul all make references to the Cephas tradition held by the ECF and the Church all through history. This argument is like trying to prove a door is a banana!

 

[Apollos]

Here is what Rhodes says on page 103:

"There are a number of factors in the Greek text that argue against this interpretation. First, whenever Peter is referred to in this passage (Matthew 16), it is in the second person (“you”), but “this rock” is in the third person (verse 18).”

This is is unintelligible as it stands. It’s either a typo or Rhodes is misspeaking. “Peter” is in the nominative case and “this rock” in verse 18 is in the dative case. The concept of grammatical person doesn’t apply here.

I’ve never heard this argument before.

 

[NotWorthy]

Here is what Rhodes says on page 103:
This is is unintelligible as it stands. It’s either a typo or Rhodes is misspeaking. “Peter” is in the nominative case and “this rock” in verse 18 is in the dative case. The concept of grammatical person doesn’t apply here.

I’ve never heard this argument before.

I’m not sure what “nominative” and “dative” mean, but from what I’ve heard, “This Rock” has to point back to the last rock referenced, which is Peter.

According to the OP, the phrase would have had to have been, “… You are Rock, BUT upon this rock…” If Jesus were referencing a different rock.

 

[Apollos]

I’m not sure what “nominative” and “dative” mean, but from what I’ve heard, “This Rock” has to point back to the last rock referenced, which is Peter.

According to the OP, the phrase would have had to have been, “… You are Rock, BUT upon this rock…” If Jesus were referencing a different rock.

I hope I am not over-explaining this, but I’m not sure how to compress it.

The grammatical case of a noun expresses its relationship with other words in the sentence. In English, for example, the word *he *has three cases:

• subjective, when used as the subject of a sentence: He threw the ball.
• objective, when used as the object of a verb or of a preposition: I hit him. I wept for him.
• possessive, when used as an adjective expressing possession: *His dog barked. I gave him his mail. The choice is his.

In the old Greek that the NT was written in, as well as in many other modern languages, there are often more than three cases, and they have different names. For ancient Greek:

• nominative, the subject of the sentence
• genitive, when expressing possession or when the object of the preposition of, like of the Father
• dative, when it is the object of prepositions like *to *or on
• accusative, when it is the object of a verb or of other prepositions like into
• vocative, when you’re addressing someone or something by name, as in *O Canada! O Lord! You idiot!

Yes, it’s complicated, but only because modern English only has three left when it used to have all five, and now only for personal pronouns, and the apostrophe-s is all that’s left of the possessive case.

Grammatical person, on the other hand, expresses the relationship between the speaker and the things spoken of.

• First: I, when the speaker is speaking about himself
• Second: you, when the speaker is speaking about the one spoken to
• Third: *he *(or she, or it), when the speaker is speaking about something that is neither himself nor the one spoken to

In Matthew 16:18, “you” is nominative because it is the subject of the sentence “you are Peter”. “Peter”, on the other hand, is also nominative because when you equate two words and join them with the verb to be, both words have to be in the same case, as when Jesus walking on the water said, “It is I; be not afraid” rather than the technically incorrect “It is me”.

“Rock”, however, is the object of the preposition “on”, and therefore is dative.

Having said all that, now I think I understand why Rhodes’ explanation is confused. When Jesus says “you are Peter”, he is talking to Peter. When talking to someone and saying something about the person being spoken to, the grammatical person that is used is the second person, as in Neo, you’re The One or you had me at hello. When talking to someone about something else, the grammatical person is the third, as in *you love her *or did you know she is a doctor?.

But Rhodes is trying to say that when Jesus says “on this rock I will build my Church”, he is talking about a rock as though the rock was not Peter. Rhodes’ analysis relies on a strange mind game, as though Jesus were pointing at Peter saying “you here are Rock” and then pointing at himself or pointing at Peter’s confession (as if that were possible) saying "but on *that other *rock, however, I will build my Church. This sort of confusion comes from first deciding that the Catholic doctrines are wrong, and then going back to the verses they are derived from and coming up with a different way of looking at them that avoids the Catholic understanding. It doesn’t run the other way. Nobody who reads verse 18 for the first time thinks that Jesus means something other than Peter.

It’s hard to explain what exactly Rhodes is getting wrong here, because the concepts are so basic.

Anyway the simplest way to refute Rhodes’ argument is to ask him to his face, “But *if *the word rock *were *in the second person, then what would it be?” He will not be able to answer, because as I said in another post, the concept of grammatical person doesn’t exactly apply here. If anything, he would attempt to reword the sentence instead of just change the form of the word itself, and that would be the dead giveaway that he doesn’t understand grammar. For example he may answer, “If it were in the second person, it would be, *You are Peter and **on you, Rock, *I will build my Church”, which inserts the word you.

 

[Apollos]

As if that answer wasn’t long enough, let me tell an anecdote about off-the-wall misinterpretations of fairly straightforward remarks.

I used to work on a college campus doing odd jobs. One day at lunch, as we were putting away our table settings, I overheard my supervisor giving my coworker a task to perform. Here is how the conversation went:
Super: **Have you ever done kitchen work?
**Coworker: **No. Why?
**Super [while putting a fork in the return bin on the cart outside the dishroom]: **I want you to take the brown truck and police the campus.
**Coworker: Ok.
The coworker disappeared for over an hour. I found him while clearing away some undergrowth near the campus entrance. He was standing at the front gate with the dishcart next to him, checking the identification of people coming onto campus. I asked him what he was doing. He told me that our supervisor had told him to “take the brown truck and police the campus”.

Then it hit me. The supervisor meant “Borrow the custodial department’s brown van and drive around campus picking up bits of stray trash”. My coworker fell victim to several levels of misunderstanding:

• When the supervisor said “take the brown truck”, he was at the same time extending his arm towards the dishcart to drop his fork into the return bin. The dishcart just so happened to be brown. My coworker misread his body language, thinking the super was pointing at the cart.
• Some people do use the word “truck” for “cart”, especially for sturdy carts like this dishcart. Therefore he though he meant the dishcart.
• And “police” for some people means “go around picking up stray bits of trash”, but for others it means “do what law enforcement officers do”. Ergo serve and protect.
• And to make matters worse, the super started the confusion by asking about kitchen work, as if checking IDs is somehow a food service position. But many food services do in fact check the identification of people who have a prepaid meal plan. Ergo check IDs at the front gate and take the dishcart with you.

Although this whole situation was hilarious, there was one sad part. After the confusion was all settled, I asked my coworker, if we assume for the sake of argument that the super did in fact want you to check IDs at the gate, why do you think he wanted you to take a dishcart with you? Did you think you were supposed to put any confiscated items like, I don’t know, weapons or something on it and truck them back to the security office?

My coworker said the saddest thing. He said yes the dishcart and frankly the whole thing with checking IDs didn’t make a whole lot of sense, but the super has a reputation for telling us to do things that make no sense at all because this is a work/study position and he wants us to log hours, so when there’s nothing left to do he will make up some nonsense task like hosing down the boulders at the edge of campus so that they don’t dry out in the sun, something that isn’t too hard but that fills up extra time.

 

[NotWorthy]

Although this whole situation was hilarious, there was one sad part. After the confusion was all settled, I asked my coworker, if we assume for the sake of argument that the super did in fact want you to check IDs at the gate, why do you think he wanted you to take a dishcart with you? Did you think you were supposed to put any confiscated items like, I don’t know, weapons or something on it and truck them back to the security office?

My coworker said the saddest thing. He said yes the dishcart and frankly the whole thing with checking IDs didn’t make a whole lot of sense, but the super has a reputation for telling us to do things that make no sense at all because this is a work/study position and he wants us to log hours, so when there’s nothing left to do he will make up some nonsense task like hosing down the boulders at the edge of campus so that they don’t dry out in the sun, something that isn’t too hard but that fills up extra time.

Of course, maybe the supervisor wanted to stop all “Silverware theft” that was rampant on campus.

“Dude, empty out your pockets. Got any forks or spoons on you? I know you’re carrying, man. 'Fess up!”

 

[Apollos]

Of course, maybe the supervisor wanted to stop all “Silverware theft” that was rampant on campus.

“Dude, empty out your pockets. Got any forks or spoons on you? I know you’re carrying, man. 'Fess up!”

Yes, I didn’t think about that. The catering company’s contract may have had an exclusivity clause prohibiting people from bringing in their own cutlery.

In a way, I wish my coworker *had *shown up at the end of the day with a cart loaded down with guns, knives, water bottles, eight sporks, toothpaste, fireworks, toenail clippers, wooden spoons, half a pastrami sandwich, a box of obscure tropical fruit of unknown origin, a chain saw, and a couple of boxes larger than 45 inches.

I can see him telling the campus security officer, in all sincerity, that the grounds crew supervisor told him to confiscate contraband.

 

[Salvatore123]

Perhaps I was being too simplistic, but I have always interpreted it the way our Lord said it as follows:

Having just asked the disciples who they thought he was, and after receiving the incorrect “guesses”, Jesus turned directly to Peter and ask HIM who he though he was.

After Peter responded directly to Jesus, our Lord turned directly to Peter and said:

" 18*And I say to thee: That thou art Peter;"

and then, turning now his gaze to all of the Apostles standing near him, said to ALL OF THEM, and not ADDRESSING ANY PARTICULAR APOSTLE SPECIFICALLY AT THIS PARTICULAR POINT:

“and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. 20Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ.”

I have posed it to many protestants before and while they don’t necessarily agree with the conclusion, none of them found my “explanation” unreasonable or even untenable.

Remember Occam’s Razor: the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. It just seemed perfectly simple to me that he asked the group a question, received wrong answers, stared straight at Peter (KNOWING what Peter’s answer would be) to hear the correct answer, and then turned again to the group and finished the quoted verses.

Christ does EXACTLY what I described above when dealing with the Centurion. Notice how he changes from hearing from and talking to ONE person (the Centurion), turns to the group and addresses THE ENTIRE GROUP based only on what the Centurion had said, and then finally turns back to the Centurion and tells him that his faith had healed his servant.

5And when he had entered into Capharnaum, there came to him a centurion, beseeching him, 6And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, and is grieviously tormented. 7And Jesus saith to him: I will come and heal him. 8And the centurion making answer, said: Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldst enter under my roof: but only say the word, and my servant shall be healed. 9For I also am a man subject to authority, having under me soldiers; and I say to this, Go, and he goeth, and to another, Come, and he cometh, and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it. 10And Jesus hearing this, marvelled; and said to them that followed him: Amen I say to you, I have not found so great faith in Israel. 11And I say to you that many shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven: 12But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into the exterior darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 13*And Jesus said to the centurion: Go, and as thou hast believed, so be it done to thee. And the servant was healed at the same hour.

Again, seems perfectly simple to me . . .

 

[NotWorthy]

Again, seems perfectly simple to me . . .

Exactly. The linguistic gymnastics used to explain this away would cause a back sprain in a yoga instructor!

Keep it simple!

 

[bluemary]

Perhaps I was being too simplistic, but I have always interpreted it the way our Lord said it as follows:

Having just asked the disciples who they thought he was, and after receiving the incorrect “guesses”, Jesus turned directly to Peter and ask HIM who he though he was.

After Peter responded directly to Jesus, our Lord turned directly to Peter and said:

" 18*And I say to thee: That thou art Peter;"

and then, turning now his gaze to all of the Apostles standing near him, said to ALL OF THEM, and not ADDRESSING ANY PARTICULAR APOSTLE SPECIFICALLY AT THIS PARTICULAR POINT:

“and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. 20Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ.”

I have posed it to many protestants before and while they don’t necessarily agree with the conclusion, none of them found my “explanation” unreasonable or even untenable.

Remember Occam’s Razor: the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. It just seemed perfectly simple to me that he asked the group a question, received wrong answers, stared straight at Peter (KNOWING what Peter’s answer would be) to hear the correct answer, and then turned again to the group and finished the quoted verses.

Christ does EXACTLY what I described above when dealing with the Centurion.

First of all, the scenario you’ve laid out is NOT what the scriptures read. In order to keep it simple, you must not read anything into the scriptures that are not there, nor leave anything out that is there.

(this is the end of the quote)

My response is not coming up in white and I don’t know why, but below is my response:

Your explanation is saying that if I ever turn from addressing one person to addressing the crowd around them regarding that person, at any time in my life, that it follows that EVERY time I address a single person while having other people around, I will ALWAYS turn to the crowd and address them regarding that person!

The simplest explanation is that it happened EXACTLY as it is written down. Jesus, addressed Simon, and when Simon answered Jesus correctly Jesus gave Simon a new title, by calling him Cepha, meaning Rock. Jesus then continued to speak (it gives absolutely NO indication that Jesus has turned his attention to anyone other than Simon when He says, “and upon this Rock I will build my church and the gates of the netherworld will not prevail against it.” (again scripture gives NO indication that Jesus is addressing anyone other than Simon when he continues), “I will give you the keys to the kingdon of Heaven, Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (only after this verse does Scripture indicate that Jesus turned to address the others, by saying that “he strictly order his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah.” (Mat. 16; 18-20). Plus, because Jesus would be speaking in Aramaic there was only one word for Rock and it was Cepha, so there is absolutely nothing to indicate that he was refering to anyone other that Peter.

You are right, the SIMPLEST explanation is often the best.

Mary

 

[NHInsider]

Here is what Rhodes says on page 103:
This is is unintelligible as it stands. It’s either a typo or Rhodes is misspeaking. “Peter” is in the nominative case and “this rock” in verse 18 is in the dative case. The concept of grammatical person doesn’t apply here.

I’ve never heard this argument before.

I expect that this is a grammatical sidebar intended to buttress the often-repeated Protestant argument that the “rock” on which Jesus will build the Church is the truth of the statement Peter has just made (You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.")

Which, of course, wrests the statement completely out of context and ignores the whole “I’m changing your name and giving you a commission” part of the story.

 

[The_Scott]

My argument is not necessarily grammatical in this way (and boy, did it bring back memories on lectures on Old English linguistics!), but in a different way.

“Peter” in Greek is Petros.
“Rock” in Greek is petra.

However, it is unlikely that Christ spoke in Greek, but His native Aramaic.

In Aramaic, “Peter” is Kepha.
“Rock” in Aramaic is (you guess it) kepha.

Therefore, Christ was using a very clever pun, literally saying: “And I tell you, you are Rock, and upon this rock…” etc etc.

Christ has a sense of humor!

 

[NotWorthy]

However, it is unlikely that Christ spoke in Greek, but His native Aramaic.

In Aramaic, “Peter” is Kepha.
“Rock” in Aramaic is (you guess it) kepha.

Therefore, Christ was using a very clever pun, literally saying: “And I tell you, you are Rock, and upon this rock…” etc etc.

Christ has a sense of humor!

There is no Aramaic for “Peter”. There was no pun.

Christ would have been saying, “And I tell you, you (Simon) are Rock, and upon this Rock…”

But you are absolutely right about Jesus using the Aramaic “Kepha” to declare Simon as “Rock”. This is easily illustrated by looking at what St. Paul calls Peter. He calls him “Cephas”. Cephas is the Greek Transliteration of the Aramaic “Kepha”.

 

[The_Scott]

There is no Aramaic for “Peter”. There was no pun.

Christ would have been saying, “And I tell you, you (Simon) are Rock, and upon this Rock…”

But you are absolutely right about Jesus using the Aramaic “Kepha” to declare Simon as “Rock”. This is easily illustrated by looking at what St. Paul calls Peter. He calls him “Cephas”. Cephas is the Greek Transliteration of the Aramaic “Kepha”.

My fault. Sorry.

I read John 1:42 too fast: “Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter).”

My mind quickly (and incorrectly) assumed that Peter, in Aramaic, was Kepha.

 

[NotWorthy]

My fault. Sorry.

I read John 1:42 too fast: “Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter).”

My mind quickly (and incorrectly) assumed that Peter, in Aramaic, was Kepha.

No problem. It’s funny, though, that you mention that Jesus was a punster.

Scott Hahn comments on how often Jesus uses puns. I’m at a loss for any of them at the moment.

 

[Regardless]

Greetings Christians!

From Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics by Ron Rhodes

On Peter being the Rock:

…whenever Peter is referred to in this passage (Matthew 16) it is in the second person (“you”), but “this rock” is in the third person (verse 18).

Sincerely in Christ,
Corrgc

I am sadly ignorant when it comes to ancient languages and the grammer of them, so I won’t comment on that side of things. But perhaps you will allow me to add a couple of bits for your discussion on Peter being “The Rock”.

As we know, in Matt. 16:18, JB, Jesus said: “I now say to you: You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church. And the gates of the underworld can never hold out against it.”

But notice in the context [vss. 13, 20] that the discussion centers on the identity of Jesus. Not Peter.

Hence, later, notice who Peter understood the rock to be:
Acts 4:8-11, JB: “Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, addressed them, ‘Rulers of the people, and elders! . . . it was by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, the one you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, … This is the stone rejected by you the builders, but which has proved to be the keystone “cornerstone,” NAB].’”

He later quoted prophecy in his letters to the same affect:
1 Pet. 2:4-8, JB (talking about Jesus Christ): “Set yourselves close to him so that you too . . . may be living stones making a spiritual house. As scripture says: See how I lay in Zion a precious cornerstone that I have chosen and the man who rests his trust on it will not be disappointed. That means that for you who are believers, it is precious; but for unbelievers, the stone rejected by the builders has proved to be the keystone, a stone to stumble over, a rock to bring men down.”

Paul also believed Jesus was the main stone the church was built on:
Eph. 2:20, JB: “You are part of a building that has the apostles and prophets for its foundations, and Christ Jesus himself for its main cornerstone.”

Neither mention Peter as being the cornerstone foundation or rock.

And St. Augastine understood similar:
“…But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter.”—The Fathers of the Church—Saint Augustine, the Retractations (Washington, D.C.; 1968),

And consider how the other apostles argued about who was greatest. Why - if Jesus had specified Peter as the foundation?:

At Luke 22:24-26, JB: “A dispute arose also between them [the apostles] about which should be reckoned the greatest, but he(Jesus) said to them, ‘Among pagans it is the kings who lord it over them, and those who have authority over them are given the title Benefactor. This must not happen with you.’”
(If Peter were the “rock,” would there have been any question as to which one of them “should be reckoned the greatest”? And Jesus would have said: “I’ve already told you Peter is the foundation” He did not.)

I understand Jesus was the foundation of the Church. Not Peter.

There. Just a couple of tricky things for you to talk about.
All the best.