Is Peter really "the rock" of the Catholic church?

With all the difference Bible translations and their respective mistranslations, it's no wonder "the church" - Catholic or otherwise - has some confusing doctrines.

Take, for instance, the Catholic insistence that "Peter is the rock" or "cornerstone" of their church. They get that idea from mistranslations in the KJV and later versions:

Matthew 16: 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (King James Version)

Matthew 16: 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. (New International Version)

Now please note what the Aramaic English New Testament says:

Matthew 16: 18 I say also to you that you are Keefa, and on this Keefa I will build my assembly, and the gates of Sheol will not subdue it.

The Aramaic English New Testament was translated directly from Aramaic into English from a copy of the oldest New Testament ever discovered, the Khabouris Codex, which some scholars date all the way back to 120 A.D. - and a footnote concerning Matthew 16:18 says:

This is a wordplay between Keefa the man and what his nickname means. Y'shua uses Keefa's name to reveal the significance of Keefa's conclusion. Neither flesh nor blood (an individual) can reveal the “nature” of Mashiyach, except YHWH Himself by the Ruach haKodesh! Using the literal meaning of Keefa's name (rock), Y'shua brings together the understanding of the Tsur (Rock) of D'varim/Deut 32:18, 30, 31; Psalm 18:46; Psalm 61 and 62; Isaiah 8:14; 17:10; 51:1-8. When Shimon Keefa says, “You are the Mashiyach, the Son of the Living Elohim” he confesses faith in Mashiyach, not the person only, but the Spirit of Mashiyach in Y'shua. Y'shua's reply provides Keefa the same reference that David and the Prophets had regarding YHWH's Salvation, the Rock. However, this verse was twisted by Catholicism to first give Peter “authority,” then usurp Peter's “authority” for its leader. Ya'akov was the first Rosh Beit Din of the Netzari, not Peter. Paganism makes the physical persons of Y'shua, Maryam, Peter, and others into deity-like icons, very contrary to Torah and Mashiyach. See also 1 Corinthians 10:4.

It is important to understand that Keefa's name was both a compliment and an insult. As Lamsa pointed out, to call someone "rock-headed" in Israel was normally a huge insult and Y'shua was being tongue-in-cheek when He made a joke at Peter's expense regarding his stubborness and what we would call today "being dense/slow." But Y'shua in that same moment also turned it into a compliment, calling to the term the other sense of "rock" - that being stability and consistent purpose.

The problem was not that Keefa had the right to lead. The problem was that he established the Aramaic assemblies 20+ years before Rome and that he had put Ya'akov in charge of the Jerusalem assembly. He did this probably because Ya'akov had a better gift for day-to-day management of both Jews and Gentiles. Keefa also preferred his field work in Babylon and Syria to staying in one place and running things that way. So the Catholic issue is really more of denying Ya'akkov's role and accrediting Romish originality to their See that did not exist. Keefa, however, clearly established the assemblies at Antioch and Babylon first. He was never in Rome that we directly know of, except when he was captured and executed (probably), but even here there is uncertainty. One interesting tradition has him buried in pieces under the stairs by the Romans because they were afraid he would resurrect if they kept the body intact....