Okay. So you are playing word games with the equivocation between "catholic" lower-case (meaning for all mankind) and "Catholic" upper-case (meaning of and by the Church of Rome). That is grade school sophistry.

referring to Matthew 16:

verse 16--And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God."

verse 17--And Jesus answered and said unto him, "Blessed art thou, Simon bar Jonah; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." ("it" is stressed and refers to what Simon Peter said, which was that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the Living God)

verse 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." ("this rock" continues the reference to the "it" of the previous verse, which is the Godhood of Jesus)

This is a common error of understanding. It makes more sense to think that Jesus would want to build a church upon the truth of his being, rather than on a frail human who denied him three times (not a good start). Peter later lead the church of Jerusalem, but had no direct successors that I know of. Such bishops that were confirmed were probably endowed with the Apostolic succession, which was not unique to Peter. No one was made a Pope, as the only intercessor between man and God was to be Jesus. No church was built upon Peter.

As for the Freemasons, I reserve an open mind, but I find the claims to be inconsistent with the caliber of men who were freemasons (e.g., George Washington). An aversion to the Catholic Church no doubt comes from the Church's willingness to condemn people to death for supposed crimes of heresy and blasphemy, and the tendency of the Pope to think he was God on Earth. (Full disclosure: I am a Lutheran...who loved the church, but could not reconcile its doctrine, dogma, and behavior with the clear language of the Bible, though he tried as hard as he could. More faithful than Peter.)