I'd like to add another one to the dossier disproving the idea that Peter was the Rock in some sort of non-metaphorical sense is somehow part of Sacred Tradition, in addition to the keys belonging exclusively to Peter. It is not true whatsoever.
7. Confessionis merces.[Col.1009C] ---Et dignum plane confessio Petri praemium consecuta est, quia Dei filium [Col.1010A] in homine vidisset. Beatus hic est, qui ultra humanos oculos et intendisse et vidisse laudatus est: non id quod ex carne et sanguine erat contuens, sed Dei filium coelestis patris revelatione conspiciens; dignusque judicatus, qui quod in Christo Dei esset, primus agnosceret. O in nuncupatione novi nominis felix Ecclesiae fundamentum, dignaque aedificatione illius petra, quae infernas leges, et tartari portas, et omnia mortis claustra dissolveret! O beatus coeli janitor, cujus arbitrio claves aeterni aditus traduntur, cujus terrestre judicium praejudicata auctoritas sit in coelo: ut quae in terris aut ligata sint aut soluta, statuti ejusdem conditionem obtineant et in coelo.
The Reward of Confession. And plainly the worthy confession of Peter is followed with a favor, because he had seen (subjunctive case) the Son of God in man. Blessed is he, who beyond human eyes is praised to have been thought of and seen: he was not believing due to the flesh and blood, but by seeing the revelation of the Son of God from the heavenly Father; and worthy and just, was he such that in Christ of God he was the first to recognize. Oh! By appellation of a new name the fruitful foundation of the Church, worthy and built is the rock of that, [the rock] which (feminine) would destroy those flames, the gates of Hell, and all of the enclosed dead that you behold. O blessed door-keeper of heaven, by whose eternal will had the keys been given to the attacked (plural fourth declension), whose earthly judgment shall be the first authorized judgment in heaven: so that those on the earth and land shall be saved, and they shall obtain the condition of the same uprightness in Heaven.
Hilary of Poitiers' IN EVANGELIUM MATTHAEI COMMENTARIUS PL 9: 1009C - 1010A
I would also like to make a correction to one of my previous posts. The commentary I attributed to Bede is not in fact written by Bede. It is written by pseudo-Bede. While that means it is no longer of saintly or Church Fatherly value, it is still of historical significance.