On Popes and Prophecy

Anyone watching the livestream from the Vatican on May 8, 2025, would naturally be moved by the drama and heartfelt emotion of the occasion.

As the crowd outside St. Peter’s Basilica murmured in the background, all eyes were focused on a small chimney ascending from the roof of the Sistine Chapel. At 6:07 p.m. local time, white smoke began to billow from the chimney, bringing the joyous audience to life. A new pope had been elected to lead the Roman Catholic Church. The now-ecstatic throng roared with jubilation, some throwing their arms up in the air, others weeping quietly with hands clasped before their faces. Flags from around the world waved in witness to the vast number of nations represented among the 1.4 billion across the globe who would see the new Pontifex Maximus as their shepherd.

Barely more than an hour after the first puff of white smoke appeared, the man once known as Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost appeared on the balcony of the basilica. Now bearing the name Leo XIV, he stood ready to address the crowd as their new “Holy Father,” succeeding Pope Francis, who had died 17 days before.

The 69-year-old Prevost, born in Chicago, Illinois—the first U.S. bishop ever elected to the papal office—inherits a troubled institution. On one side, loud voices cry out for a return to the older ways of pre-Vatican II Catholicism, fearing that attempts to reach out to our degraded culture have led to accommodating its degradation. On the other side, equally loud voices cry out for more of the reform Francis represented for many as he sought to make his church more accessible to the excluded and marginalized who seek its guidance. The divide is so great that some feared a schism was inevitable—perhaps one reason why Prevost, seen by some as a man between the extremes, was elected.

But why should we care? The world’s faithful Roman Catholics will certainly care. But what of the other 6 to 7 billion human beings on planet Earth? After all, the era of popes choosing emperors, launching wars, or commanding Inquisitions seems long past. What impact could Leo XIV possibly have on the life of an average, non-Catholic person?

In fact, the impact of one pope—perhaps this one, or perhaps one to follow—will be great indeed. If we allow Bible prophecy to guide us, we will see that a man leading the Vatican hierarchy may well stand at the very center of end-time events in the years ahead. But understanding why and how requires us to understand the plain truth about the papacy.

False Claims of the Pontifex Maximus

Faithful Roman Catholics see Leo XIV as the 267th bishop of Rome in a continuous succession extending back to the Apostle Peter. In the late second century AD, the Catholic bishop Irenaeus defended the primacy of the Roman bishop on the supposed grounds that the church there was “founded and organized… by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul” (Against Heresies 3:3:2). Peter was said to have taken up residence in Rome for about 25 years as the bishop of its congregations before he and the Apostle Paul were martyred there. Since then, it is claimed, the bishop of Rome has been the “Pontifex Maximus”—a term borrowed from Rome’s pagan past—meaning essentially “head bridge-builder” as the chief of bishops the world over.

Perhaps the strongest statement of papal power was made by Pope Boniface VIII in 1302, who stated unequivocally, “We declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” Interestingly, while later developments have softened that statement’s interpretation, it is still, as they say, “on the books.” And the modern Catechism of the Catholic Church is plain-spoken: “The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor… has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered” (§882).

Extraordinary claims, to be sure. But are they true? Setting dogma aside and examining the evidence of both secular history and sacred Scripture provides the answer: No, they are not! If we are willing to allow God to guide us, we can see the plain truth regarding true Christianity.

Peter: Leader, but Not Pope

After Simon the fisherman was the first to confess Jesus’ identity as the Christ and Son of God (Matthew 16:15–18), Christ changed this disciple’s name to Peter, a Greek name meaning a rock or stone—a frequently misunderstood change that we will examine later. During His ministry, Christ frequently mentioned Peter, James, and John as having leading roles among His disciples (Matthew 17:1; Luke 8:51; Mark 14:33). The Lord Jesus prayed specifically for the protection of Peter, whom the Devil targeted (Luke 22:31–32).

On the Day of Pentecost, upon the first public proclamation of the newly Spirit-empowered Church, all the disciples spoke—but Peter clearly took the lead (Acts 2:4–8, 14). His peers recognized that Peter had been given a special commission to take the Gospel of the Kingdom to the “circumcised” (Galatians 2:7). And though the commission to the Gentiles would fall primarily to Paul, God still used Peter to first open the door to them (Acts 10–11; 15:7). James specially cited Peter’s words at the conclusion of the Jerusalem conference (Acts 15:13–21). And in lists of the Apostles, Scripture always lists Peter first, even though Peter’s brother, Andrew, apparently followed Jesus earlier (Matthew 10:2; Luke 6:13–14; John 1:40–42).

God is organized and orderly (see 1 Corinthians 14:33, 40), so it should be no surprise that there is structure and order within the leadership of His Church. The Almighty consistently organizes His people under the leadership of one individual—whether on a national scale, as when Moses led the Israelites, or on a personal scale, as found in the biblical family. Why should we expect the Church to be organized any differently (see Malachi 3:6; Hebrews 13:8)?

Clearly, Christ gave Peter a special place of leadership among the Apostles. Yet it is just as clear that Peter’s role in the early Church did not resemble the modern-day papacy. The Apostle Paul’s description of James, Peter, and John as those who “seemed to be pillars” in Jerusalem is hardly what one would expect if one of them possessed “full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church.” And while Peter’s testimony was found especially important in Acts 15, it appears that James, not Peter, presided over the conference (vv. 13–21), perhaps as leader of the congregation in Jerusalem (Acts 21:17–18; Galatians 2:12), which was at that time the headquarters of God’s Church. And Paul’s calling out Peter’s hypocrisy among the Gentiles hardly seems to reflect the deference and veneration shown to popes today (see Galatians 2:6–14).

Truly, nothing in the biblical accounts of Peter’s ministry among his fellow Apostles shows him in anything like the role of “pope” as understood by Roman Catholic believers today.

Is Peter “the Rock”?

But if Peter was not the first pope, how should we understand Matthew 16, where Jesus asked His disciples who they understood Him to be? Peter was the first to answer: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16). In response, the Savior blessed Peter and said that this recognition came not from Peter’s own intelligence, but from God’s revelation (v. 17). Christ then changed Peter’s name from Simon, his given name, to Peter, in a statement that has launched more debates than perhaps any other in the history of Christianity:

Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven (vv. 17–19).

We see here a play on words. In New Testament Greek, Peter is Petros, which is related to the Greek word petra for “rock.” But did Christ say He would build His Church on the man Peter? Papal supporters point to a seemingly obvious connection: Jesus changed Peter’s name to “rock” because He would build the Church on Peter—and, by extension, all the popes they say have followed as successors.

Critics of the papacy, however, point out that the words petros and petra are not the same, and in fact point to differences of meaning, with petros indicating a smaller stone and petra a much larger one. Papal supporters try to diminish this distinctive wordplay, observing that it is not found in the Aramaic language Jesus and Peter were speaking, where kepha (the basis of Paul’s use of Cephas as Peter’s name) would have served both purposes. Yet God chose to record the inspired account in Greek, not Aramaic—so the Greek distinction should not be dismissed out of hand.

Jesus Is the Rock

If we look to other inspired passages, the truth about “this rock” is clear. Jesus Christ is the Rock on whom the Church is built. Paul identifies Christ as the cornerstone of the “household of God” (Ephesians 2:19–20). Peter himself affirms this in his public preaching and his writings to other Christians (Acts 4:11; 1 Peter 2:6–7). The Savior revealed that He Himself is the foundational stone (Matthew 21:42) and explained in parables that building “on the rock” means acting on His teachings (Matthew 7:24–25). Paul, explaining that the preincarnate Jesus Christ was the God who aided ancient Israel, affirmed, “That Rock was Christ” (1 Corinthians 10:4).

Even one of the most influential “doctors” of the Roman Catholic Church, Augustine of Hippo, made exactly the same arguments in his writings and sermons in the early fifth century AD. Later in his life, Augustine quoted some of the very same verses mentioned above to point out that it was Jesus Christ, the One whom Peter confessed—not Peter himself—who was the Rock on which Christ promised to build His Church (e.g., The Retractations, ch. 20, sec. 1; Sermon 76; Sermon 295; Sermon 229P). A thousand years before any Protestant reformers made this argument against the papacy, one of the leading Roman Catholic theologians had done the same! In fact, Pope Leo XIV, himself a follower of Augustine, made the very same point concerning Christ’s being the Rock in his inaugural Mass in May.

And what of Christ’s statement about the “keys of the kingdom of heaven” and authority to bind and loose on earth and heaven? Just two chapters later, Christ gives that same authority to bind and loose not just to Peter, but to all the Apostles (Matthew 18:18). Yes, Christ was moving the “seat” of authority—to judge according to God’s laws—from the Jewish leadership to His Apostles (see Matthew 23:1–3, 13). But as that authority was given to all the Twelve, it can hardly be used to support the idea that the pope possesses “full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church.”

Rome’s Claims Crumble

And what of the claim that the church in Rome was “founded and organized” by the Apostles Peter and Paul? Even if true, this would still be insufficient to establish Rome as the authoritative headquarters for all Christians. Regardless, neither history nor Scripture is kind to this claim.

Respected historian Eamon Duffy is a Catholic scholar known for his zeal for his church and its papacy. But he is also plain about the tales of Roman Catholic origins and the claims of an unbroken papal line from Peter to today’s pontiff:

They are pious romance, not history, and the fact is that we have no reliable accounts either of Peter’s later life or of the manner or place of his death. Neither Peter nor Paul founded the Church at Rome, for there were Christians in the city before either of the Apostles set foot there. Nor can we assume, as Irenaeus did, that the Apostles established there a succession of bishops to carry on their work in the city, for all the indications are that there was no single bishop at Rome for almost a century after the deaths of the Apostles. In fact, wherever we turn, the solid outlines of the Petrine succession at Rome seem to blur and dissolve (Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes, Fourth Edition, 2014).

No, the Christian community at Rome was not “founded and organized” by Peter and Paul, as Irenaeus would falsely assert more than a century after both had been martyred. In fact, Paul made it plain that the living Christ had commissioned Peter to take the Gospel to Israelites, just as Paul was commissioned to take it to Gentiles—the “circumcised” and “uncircumcised,” respectively, of Galatians 2:7–9. The idea that Peter would abandon Christ’s commission to take up a decades-long residence as a “bishop of Rome” is absurd.

Further, Peter wrote in his first epistle that he was writing from “Babylon”—a real first-century place name, attested by first-century historians Philo and Josephus. In fact, Josephus notes that there were “Jews in great numbers” in Babylon in the first century (Antiquities 15.2.2), meaning that Peter’s presence there is consistent with his commission to the “circumcised.”

And it is equally clear that when Paul wrote to the Romans, he was writing to strengthen an already extant and active body of believers, expressing his longing to eventually visit them (e.g., Romans 1:9–12; 15:22–28). Significantly, when in Romans 16 Paul greets many notable Christians in Rome by name, he makes no mention of Peter. Paul may well have gone to Rome later, and both he and Peter may indeed have met their ends there. But the idea that they founded Rome’s Christian community is baseless.

In fact, in AD 451, the Council of Chalcedon noted in Canon 28 that the reason for Rome’s primacy was primarily “because it was the imperial city”—that is, due to its political importance, and not any theological or apostolic grounds.

Why It Matters

Early accounts of the organization that would become the Roman Catholic Church show numerous significant decisions made—as in the Council of Nicaea in AD 325—with scarcely any involvement of a “pope” at all, and certainly with no appeal to the authority of one. The truth is that the papacy is a gradual creation of that organization—not a continuation of the “chair of Peter” and not divinely ordained by Jesus Christ. No pope as understood by Catholics today is found in the biblical record.

But why should we care? For at least two vital reasons. First, any claims that the Roman Catholic Church and its pope possess authority to deviate from the plain and simple commands of Jesus Christ and the laws of God are utterly unfounded, unsupported by Scripture. And such deviations are legion.

For instance, consider the seventh-day Sabbath, explicitly mandated in the Fourth Commandment (Exodus 20:8–11) and observed by the first-century Church as attested by both Scripture and secular history. How did Sunday come to be observed instead? The Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, published in 1910 under official imprimatur, is plain: “We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 336), transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.”

Also consider the worship and veneration of images, statues, and icons. Such worship is explicitly forbidden in the Second Commandment (Exodus 20:4–6). Yet “the seventh ecumenical council at Nicaea (787) justified… the veneration of icons—of Christ, but also of the Mother of God, the angels, and all the saints” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, §2131). Word games claiming that such “veneration” is not “worship” do not change the fact that any ancient (or modern) heathens viewing Catholic custom regarding statuary and icons would recognize their own idolatrous practice.

Christ Himself condemned those who, in His day, did possess the “keys” and sit in the seat of authority: the scribes and Pharisees. And what did He say of them when they used their authority to depart from the word of God and create interpretations of His law that effectively violate that law?

Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?… Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophecy about you, saying: “These people draw near to Me with their mouth, and honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” (Matthew 15:3–9).

What a parallel! Like the Pharisees of old, papal authorities throughout the centuries have made judgments concerning God’s laws that have caused His commands to be made “of no effect” through the resulting traditions. Those who do so today share in the Pharisees’ condemnation.

Recognizing whether the pope is a true leader or a false one does matter. It matters because truth matters—and the Father is not seeking those who will follow in the Pharisees’ footsteps, putting tradition over truth, however sincere they might be. God does not play word games, and He is seeking those who will worship in both “spirit and truth” (John 4:23–24).

The False Prophet of Revelation

It also matters because your Bible warns of a charismatic, miracle-working false prophet who will lead a global religious revival in the years leading up to Christ’s return. This figure will be the head of a powerful, wealthy, world-encompassing church representing a false, counterfeit Christianity (2 Thessalonians 2:8–10; Revelation 17:1–6). This deceptive false prophet will be the last in an ancient line of false leaders who have claimed to teach in Christ’s name—a line Jesus prophesied would begin during the lives of His Apostles and be seen in the “antichrists” of their own day (Matthew 24:4–5; 1 John 2:18). This line will culminate in an end-time false prophet who will appear Christian in many ways but teach subtle twists (word games) and deceptive doctrines of the Devil (Revelation 13:11).

This religious leader will wield political influence, as well, in league with a coming European superpower and its leader—the notorious “beast” of Revelation. Together, they will persecute those who seek to hold to the true teachings of Jesus Christ and resist false doctrines (Revelation 13:12–15). Prophecy depicts this wealthy, powerful, compromising, “Christian” church, led by the false prophet, as becoming drunk on the blood of the righteous saints it will slaughter (Revelation 17:6).

The end of that counterfeit church, its religious leader, his political ally, and the entire, blasphemous system they represent is certain: They will be utterly destroyed by Jesus Christ and His glorified saints at the Savior’s return. But, before that time, the prophesied false prophet to come—speaking in Christ’s name, claiming to act on His behalf and with His authority, and adored by millions upon millions of “Christians” worldwide—will be at the very center of an astonishing amount of suffering.

Only the spiritually blind could fail to see the potential connection between the vast, wealthy, ostentatious, powerful, counterfeit “Christian” church of prophecy, led by a singular false prophet, and the Roman Catholic Church of today, led by a pope and teaching falsehoods in Christ’s name. And only the foolish would be unwilling to seriously consider the matter. To be sure, none of this means that Pope Leo XIV is definitely that prophesied false prophet. But the office he now occupies fits the role, and students of God’s word will be watching to see what the months and years ahead will bring.

To help you study this topic further, we offer two valuable study guides: Satan’s Counterfeit Christianity and Who or What Is the Antichrist? You can read them online at TomorrowsWorld.org or order your own free printed copy. The truth of Christ is not to be found in the councils, creeds, or canon laws of the Roman Catholic Church—nor those of her harlot daughters (Revelation 17:5), who have inherited their mother’s compromises and made new ones of their own. Yet Jesus Christ did promise to build His Church—and He has! These two resources will help you begin your journey to finding it.