NationStates Jolt Archive

Just because I'm curious, what is the history of Catholocism between the end of the apostles and the time of the 1st pope? How did clergy come to power? Who did they get their priesthood passed down from?

Peter (the apostle) was the first pope, I thought....

Peter (the apostle) was the first pope, I thought....As far as I know, the pope was the title given to the bishop of rome... and the bishops didn't show up for quite a while after peter died.

Peter (the apostle) was the first pope, I thought....
I don’t think he was called Pope until after he died though.
__________________________________________________
Out of all the demons in this world, none is more frightening than man

So really, 2 questions: Who was the first person to be pope (after peter) and who gave them their priesthood?

According to this site : http://www.popechart.com/Popelist.htm
St. Peter is indeed the first pope. A rather more professional website on it here : http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=5358

OK, so Linus immediately followed Peter.

Who gave Linus the priesthood?

anyone?

Charlie Brown?

Here's another version according to Rich tatum aka "Church Rodent", which I happen to think is more factual than the Vatican's version:

Leo, Bishop of Rome
The first Pope, from 440-461. In June of 452, was sent as an emissary to negotiate for peace with Attila the Hun as he advanced on Rome. When Attila withdrew, probably for reasons of his own, the Bishop of Rome assumed a new role regardless. And again on June 2, 455, he met Gaiseric, King of the Vandals from Scandinavia. Gaiseric also spared Rome, even though the imperial army had fled, at the imploration of Biship Leo. He did not destroy Rome, but only pillaged it for fourteen days, hen left. Leo was credited for saving Rome. Leo provided for the first time the biblical and theological basis of the papal claim. On his acceptance of the office of the bishop of Rome, Leo raised the status of the bishop's office to that of "Supreme Head of all Christendom." Christ built his church on Peter, the bishops are successors to Peter, thus the bishops, and ultimately the Roman bishop, held the church's final authority, according to Leo. In 445, the Emperor Valentinian III issued a decree supporting Leo's claim of primacy, thus making his claim imperial law.

As Peter lived in Rome at the end of his life, and led the church there, he was considered the bishop.
But the priesthood itself evolved from the first two hundred years. Jesus assigned Peter to govern the church, but he couldn't do it by himself. So he assigned bishops to do it. Eventually, local churches got too big themselves, so bishops hired what they called prebsters. However, the laity quickly called them priests. Deacons were also created as priests' assistents, and in the first century, there were deaconesses.

As Peter lived in Rome at the end of his life, and led the church there, he was considered the bishop.
But the priesthood itself evolved from the first two hundred years. Jesus assigned Peter to govern the church, but he couldn't do it by himself. So he assigned bishops to do it. Eventually, local churches got too big themselves, so bishops hired what they called prebsters. However, the laity quickly called them priests. Deacons were also created as priests' assistents, and in the first century, there were deaconesses.That's weird... my history book at college says the opposite... priests first, then presbyters, then bishops.. or something like that.

Either way, was the priesthood ever passed? Or Peter just give assignments?

And Collab: What were the people before Leo called? That first site said they were called popes as well...

As Peter lived in Rome at the end of his life, and led the church there, he was considered the bishop.
But the priesthood itself evolved from the first two hundred years. Jesus assigned Peter to govern the church, but he couldn't do it by himself. So he assigned bishops to do it. Eventually, local churches got too big themselves, so bishops hired what they called prebsters. However, the laity quickly called them priests. Deacons were also created as priests' assistents, and in the first century, there were deaconesses.That's weird... my history book at college says the opposite... priests first, then presbyters, then bishops.. or something like that.

Either way, was the priesthood ever passed? Or Peter just give assignments?

And Collab: What were the people before Leo called? That first site said they were called popes as well...

The protestant version is that they were "episcopos" or "overseers" later known as bishops. Clement of Rome could be the first episcopos there; earlier they would have had "prebuteros"; "elders".

Until Constantine it was not worth getting hierarchical about the office, it was a good place to get killed (martyred); no use calling yourself "pope" until the state supports your religion.

As Peter lived in Rome at the end of his life, and led the church there, he was considered the bishop.
But the priesthood itself evolved from the first two hundred years. Jesus assigned Peter to govern the church, but he couldn't do it by himself. So he assigned bishops to do it. Eventually, local churches got too big themselves, so bishops hired what they called prebsters. However, the laity quickly called them priests. Deacons were also created as priests' assistents, and in the first century, there were deaconesses.That's weird... my history book at college says the opposite... priests first, then presbyters, then bishops.. or something like that.

Either way, was the priesthood ever passed? Or Peter just give assignments?

And Collab: What were the people before Leo called? That first site said they were called popes as well...

The protestant version is that they were "episcopos" or "overseers" later known as bishops. Clement of Rome could be the first episcopos there; earlier they would have had "prebuteros"; "elders".

Until Constantine it was not worth getting hierarchical about the office, it was a good place to get killed (martyred); no use calling yourself "pope" until the state supports your religion.

Cool... but is there any documentation that says that Peter gave the priesthood to those other people? Or anyone for that matter? Or is it all just (for lack of a better phrase) made up into the history books years later, to fill in the gap?

bump

come on, this is important!

buuuuuuuuuuuump

the bloody pope come on, In his gay little pope car.

if i ever see that im gonna push it over.. Hmm roman smell about it to.

Im sure.

Power to the paeodos, + protection by the hollyness

(i know i know catholics are out for the good of mankind, well stop hiding criminals of the sickest kind please)

I'm just trying to question the Catholic Authority, to see if they have any idea where their priesthood power comes from.. it's pretty important

the bloody pope come on, In his gay little pope car.

if i ever see that im gonna push it over.. Hmm roman smell about it to.

Im sure.

Power to the paeodos, + protection by the hollyness

(i know i know catholics are out for the good of mankind, well stop hiding criminals of the sickest kind please)

......And let the world know what you have hidden in the catacombs !!!

I'm just trying to question the Catholic Authority, to see if they have any idea where their priesthood power comes from.. it's pretty important

some sort of roman conspiracy no ?

I'm just trying to question the Catholic Authority, to see if they have any idea where their priesthood power comes from.. it's pretty important

A Secret PRIESTHOOD Organization? Is that what you're trying to find out Ray? Do you mind if I call you Ray? It's easier then Raysia.. if you don't mind..

In all seriousness.. if you want to know about religion and stuff Ray, just ask me.. I don't know every thing obviously.. but I have studied religion rather extensively..

If you give me an idea of exactly what you're looking for.. maybe I could help. I'm not a total b*tch you know ;)

Maybe their priesthood power comes from rolling 20 for cleric?

I'm just trying to question the Catholic Authority, to see if they have any idea where their priesthood power comes from.. it's pretty important

A Secret PRIESTHOOD Organization? Is that what you're trying to find out Ray? Do you mind if I call you Ray? It's easier then Raysia.. if you don't mind..

In all seriousness.. if you want to know about religion and stuff Ray, just ask me.. I don't know every thing obviously.. but I have studied religion rather extensively..

If you give me an idea of exactly what you're looking for.. maybe I could help. I'm not a total b*tch you know ;)LOL

I believe the physical/spiritual act of ordaining someone to the priesthood is very key in religious history. One of the core differences between mormonism and every other Catholic-based Christian religion is who has the priesthood.

The mormons have an extensive library of every one of the millions of LDS who have the priesthood and from who and when they got it, and everyone who has it can trace back person-by-person all the way to Christ himself.

Now, obviously, I don't expect catholics to have anything that extensive, I was just wondering if there were any gaps in the priesthood line. Did this Linus guy get it directly from Peter? Or did he just assume the priesthood when Peter died?

Here's a good article which pushes for a conservative early date for an institutional priesthood but acknowledges the opposing view.

http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Homiletic/11-96/2/2.html

It's from about.com's religion section, which i recommend.

I'm just trying to question the Catholic Authority, to see if they have any idea where their priesthood power comes from.. it's pretty important

A Secret PRIESTHOOD Organization? Is that what you're trying to find out Ray? Do you mind if I call you Ray? It's easier then Raysia.. if you don't mind..

In all seriousness.. if you want to know about religion and stuff Ray, just ask me.. I don't know every thing obviously.. but I have studied religion rather extensively..

If you give me an idea of exactly what you're looking for.. maybe I could help. I'm not a total b*tch you know ;)LOL

I believe the physical/spiritual act of ordaining someone to the priesthood is very key in religious history. One of the core differences between mormonism and every other Catholic-based Christian religion is who has the priesthood.

The mormons have an extensive library of every one of the millions of LDS who have the priesthood and from who and when they got it, and everyone who has it can trace back person-by-person all the way to Christ himself.

Now, obviously, I don't expect catholics to have anything that extensive, I was just wondering if there were any gaps in the priesthood line. Did this Linus guy get it directly from Peter? Or did he just assume the priesthood when Peter died?

Pope Linus

(Reigned about A.D. 64 or 67 to 76 or 79). Sorry, I can't remember to be exact.

All the ancient records of the Roman bishops which have been handed down by St. Irenaeus, Julius Africanus, St. Hippolytus, Eusebius, also the Liberian catalogue of 354, place the name of Linus directly after that of the Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter. These records are traced back to a list of the Roman bishops which existed in the time of Pope Eleutherus (about 174-189), when it's claimed Irenaeus wrote his book "Adversus haereses". As opposed to this testimony, It's not accepted as more reliable then Tertullian's assertion, which unquestionably places St. Clement (De praescriptione, xxii) after the Apostle Peter, as was also done later by other Latin scholars (Jerome, "De vir. ill.", xv). The Roman list in Irenaeus has undoubtedly greater claims to historical authority. This author claims that Pope Linus is the Linus mentioned by St. Paul in his II Timothy 4:21. The passage by Irenaeus (Adv. haereses, III, iii, 3) reads:


After the Holy Apostles (Peter and Paul) had founded and set the Church in order (in Rome) they gave over the exercise of the episcopal office to Linus. The same Linus is mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy. His successor was Anacletus.

They aren't positive whether this identification of the pope as being the Linus mentioned in II Timothy 4:21, goes back to an ancient and reliable source, or originated later on account of the similarity of the name.

Linus's term of office, according to the papal lists handed down, lasted only twelve years.

I hope this answers your question.

If I'm not mistaken you guys believe in 'three secret councils "

1. Nauvoo Polygamists

2. The "Endowed Quorum"

3. The Council of 50

Did I get that right?

Pope Linus

(Reigned about A.D. 64 or 67 to 76 or 79). Sorry, I can't remember to be exact.

All the ancient records of the Roman bishops which have been handed down by St. Irenaeus, Julius Africanus, St. Hippolytus, Eusebius, also the Liberian catalogue of 354, place the name of Linus directly after that of the Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter. These records are traced back to a list of the Roman bishops which existed in the time of Pope Eleutherus (about 174-189), when it's claimed Irenaeus wrote his book "Adversus haereses". As opposed to this testimony, It's not accepted as more reliable then Tertullian's assertion, which unquestionably places St. Clement (De praescriptione, xxii) after the Apostle Peter, as was also done later by other Latin scholars (Jerome, "De vir. ill.", xv). The Roman list in Irenaeus has undoubtedly greater claims to historical authority. This author claims that Pope Linus is the Linus mentioned by St. Paul in his II Timothy 4:21. The passage by Irenaeus (Adv. haereses, III, iii, 3) reads:


After the Holy Apostles (Peter and Paul) had founded and set the Church in order (in Rome) they gave over the exercise of the episcopal office to Linus. The same Linus is mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy. His successor was Anacletus.

They aren't positive whether this identification of the pope as being the Linus mentioned in II Timothy 4:21, goes back to an ancient and reliable source, or originated later on account of the similarity of the name.

Linus's term of office, according to the papal lists handed down, lasted only twelve years.

I hope this answers your question. It's very informative... but it doesn't quote answer my question. how was the priesthood passed? Did peter give it to Linus, or did Linus assume it when peter died?

If I'm not mistaken you guys believe in 'three secret councils "

1. Nauvoo Polygamists

2. The "Endowed Quorum"

3. The Council of 50

Did I get that right?I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about.

If I'm not mistaken you guys believe in 'three secret councils "

1. Nauvoo Polygamists

2. The "Endowed Quorum"

3. The Council of 50

Did I get that right?I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about.

One very fundamental aspect of Mormon Fundamentalism involves their religious organization usually referred to as the Priesthood. It is described as being a separate and distinct entity from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. At its head is a special council of up to six men, sometimes called High Priest Apostles. Most Fundamentalists believe that Joseph Smith organized two religious bodies: the Church and a Priesthood organization. Joseph Musser, a prominent Fundamentalist writer, explained that God designed the Priesthood to preside over the Church and to give direction and guidance to the First Presidency which in turn instructs Church members.


According to Fundamentalist beliefs, the men who initially served as leaders in the Priesthood organization were also members of the Church. Supposedly, this is why it is so difficult to identify a Priesthood organization in the early days of the Church. For example, they believe that the Joseph Smith was not only Church President, but that he was also the Senior member of the Priesthood governing council. They believe that when the Prophet was acting as President of the High Priesthood, he wasn't doing it as President of the Church, but as the Senior member of that Priesthood council, a second calling he supposedly held.


Allegedly the Priesthood's leadership became disaffected with the Church during the presidency of Joseph F. Smith. Fundamentalist history suggests that John W. Woolley became the Senior leader at this time. Some will say the division occurred earlier, perhaps while Wilford Woodruff was President. Regardless, the theory is that when the Church President stopped authorizing new plural marriages to be performed (1904), the Priesthood organization then broke away from the Church with its own leadership and membership. Many Fundamentalists will bear fervent testimony that this is so.


This idea will surprise most Church members since they have never heard about it previously. They assert that the reason the Priesthood was entirely unknown during the early decades of the Church was because it was a secret organization.

This is where the concept of 'three secret councils" comes from.. it's part of the history of your religion Ray.. while granted.. not practiced any more by main stream Mormons any more..

P.S. As for Linus , no one knows for sure. Different scholars believe different arguments. That's what I was trying to tell you.

If I'm not mistaken you guys believe in 'three secret councils "

1. Nauvoo Polygamists

2. The "Endowed Quorum"

3. The Council of 50

Did I get that right?I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about.

One very fundamental aspect of Mormon Fundamentalism involves their religious organization usually referred to as the Priesthood. It is described as being a separate and distinct entity from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. At its head is a special council of up to six men, sometimes called High Priest Apostles. Most Fundamentalists believe that Joseph Smith organized two religious bodies: the Church and a Priesthood organization. Joseph Musser, a prominent Fundamentalist writer, explained that God designed the Priesthood to preside over the Church and to give direction and guidance to the First Presidency which in turn instructs Church members.


According to Fundamentalist beliefs, the men who initially served as leaders in the Priesthood organization were also members of the Church. Supposedly, this is why it is so difficult to identify a Priesthood organization in the early days of the Church. For example, they believe that the Joseph Smith was not only Church President, but that he was also the Senior member of the Priesthood governing council. They believe that when the Prophet was acting as President of the High Priesthood, he wasn't doing it as President of the Church, but as the Senior member of that Priesthood council, a second calling he supposedly held.


Allegedly the Priesthood's leadership became disaffected with the Church during the presidency of Joseph F. Smith. Fundamentalist history suggests that John W. Woolley became the Senior leader at this time. Some will say the division occurred earlier, perhaps while Wilford Woodruff was President. Regardless, the theory is that when the Church President stopped authorizing new plural marriages to be performed (1904), the Priesthood organization then broke away from the Church with its own leadership and membership. Many Fundamentalists will bear fervent testimony that this is so.


This idea will surprise most Church members since they have never heard about it previously. They assert that the reason the Priesthood was entirely unknown during the early decades of the Church was because it was a secret organization.

This is where the concept of 'three secret councils" comes from.. it's part of the history of your religion Ray.. while granted.. not practiced any more by meain stream Mormons any more..Umm... in case you didn't know, there is no such thing as a Mormon Fundamentalist.

Anyone who claims to be a Mormon Fundamentalist is not a member of the LDS church.

That is a fact.

If anyone claims to be a mormon fundamentalist, they are excommunicated.

There is no room for argument there.

Other than that, I still have no idea what you are talking about...

And I'd personally like to get my information on the history of my religion from members of my religion... not from people who read anti-mormon literature, or confuse the RLDS church with the LDS church.

And I'd personally like to get my information on the history of my religion from members of my religion... not from people who read anti-mormon literature, or confuse the RLDS church with the LDS church.

It's not a bias Ray, it's a fact. It was in the begining of your church. I already said it's not practiced any more by main stream LDS.. but it is your roots. That can't be denied. Hey, I don't have an agenda here. I was just trying to give you some info.. I'm an athesit.. Just because I studied religion that doesn't mean I believe in god as you well know. It's because I studied religion that I don't believe in god.. no one can claim to be a real atheist unless they know exactly what it is they don't believe in.. therefore the study of religion is important as far as I'm concerned. I'm not putting down your religion.. I'm simply telling you your history. Sorry you didn't know it. I'll leave this thread now.. I was actually trying to be helpful.. not insulting.

And I'd personally like to get my information on the history of my religion from members of my religion... not from people who read anti-mormon literature, or confuse the RLDS church with the LDS church.

It's not a bias Ray, it's a fact. It was in the begining of your church. I already said it's not practiced any more by main stream LDS.. but it is your roots. That can't be denied. Hey, I don't have an agenda here. I was just trying to give you some info.. I'm an athesit.. Just because I studied religion that doesn't mean I believe in god as you well know. It's because I studied religion that I don't believe in god.. no one can claim to be a real atheist unless they know exactly what it is they don't believe in.. therefore the study of religion is important as far as I'm concerned. I'm not putting down your religion.. I'm simply telling you your history. Sorry you didn't know it. I'll leave this thread now.. I was actually trying to be helpful.. not insulting.Whoa, calm down... I'm just reacting this way because you're throwing stuff at me that I have never heard of before.

Our current prophet had this to say: "There is no such thing as a “Mormon Fundamentalist.” It is a contradiction to use the two words together."

The stuff you posted is complete nonsense to me. You're probably thinking of an unrecognized mormon spin-off church called the Reorganized Church or Latter-Day Saints.

We have NOTHING to do with that church, and I would appreciate it if you did not associate the LDS church with any of it's deviant derivatives.

The basic organization is rather simple, and it has been in place since it was founded:

There is 1 man who is given the title of both President and Prophet of the LDS church. Today, his name is Gordon B. Hinckley.
He has two counsellors.
These 3 people make up the body known as the "First presidency."
The First presidency is the top half of the Quorum of the 12 apostles (actually 15... 12 apostles, plus the 3 in the first presidency)

Under them are the quorums of the Seventy. Seventy is not a number, it's a title. They are the general authorities over an area of the world.

Under them are the regional presidents. They oversee whole cities usually.

Under them are the stake presidents, who oversee a stake, which is a collection of wards in a city.

Under them are the Bishops, who oversee the wards, small little communities or neighborhoods of about 500 people. These are the congregations.

Under the Bishopric is the High Priests Quorum, which consists of all the older priesthood holders in a ward.

Under the High Priests Quorum is the Elders Quorum (I'm an Elder.) The elder is the office of the typical male Mormon from age 18-40

Before the elders Quorum are the offices of the lesser (aaronic) priesthood, overseen by the bishop. The offices are (from lowest to highest): Deacon, Teacher, Priest.

A deacon is the lowest priesthood holder. They are typically ages 12-13.

That is the real priesthood hierarchy... I don't know where you got your information from... but every male church member knows at least the above.

I'm just trying to question the Catholic Authority, to see if they have any idea where their priesthood power comes from.. it's pretty important

The power comes from the word of God in the form of Christ as translated by men. That would be the basis of all Christian teaching, Catholic or Protestant.

Jim

I'm just trying to question the Catholic Authority, to see if they have any idea where their priesthood power comes from.. it's pretty important

The power comes from the word of God in the form of Christ as translated by men. That would be the basis of all Christian teaching, Catholic or Protestant.

JimUmm, yeah... I have a slight problem with someone just assuming the priesthood...

Hebrews 5:4
And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.

I'm just trying to question the Catholic Authority, to see if they have any idea where their priesthood power comes from.. it's pretty important

The power comes from the word of God in the form of Christ as translated by men. That would be the basis of all Christian teaching, Catholic or Protestant.

JimUmm, yeah... I have a slight problem with someone just assuming the priesthood...

Hebrews 5:4
And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.



As translated By man. Are you, Raysia qualified to condemn one who claims preisthood? He may have heard the call and you did not overhear. Perhaps it is the lay-priests that should be listened to, more than the ordained for perhaps they have more insight and less training.

Jim

Pardon Me: "assumes Priesthood"

I'm just trying to question the Catholic Authority, to see if they have any idea where their priesthood power comes from.. it's pretty important

The power comes from the word of God in the form of Christ as translated by men. That would be the basis of all Christian teaching, Catholic or Protestant.

JimUmm, yeah... I have a slight problem with someone just assuming the priesthood...

Hebrews 5:4
And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.



As translated By man. Are you, Raysia qualified to condemn one who claims preisthood? He may have heard the call and you did not overhear. Perhaps it is the lay-priests that should be listened to, more than the ordained for perhaps they have more insight and less training.

Jim

Pardon Me: "assumes Priesthood"Maybe it's just a teaching of my religion... but I believe that you have to have the priesthood ordained upon you only by the laying-on of hands.

I'm just trying to question the Catholic Authority, to see if they have any idea where their priesthood power comes from.. it's pretty important

The power comes from the word of God in the form of Christ as translated by men. That would be the basis of all Christian teaching, Catholic or Protestant.

JimUmm, yeah... I have a slight problem with someone just assuming the priesthood...

Hebrews 5:4
And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.



As translated By man. Are you, Raysia qualified to condemn one who claims preisthood? He may have heard the call and you did not overhear. Perhaps it is the lay-priests that should be listened to, more than the ordained for perhaps they have more insight and less training.

Jim

Pardon Me: "assumes Priesthood"Maybe it's just a teaching of my religion... but I believe that you have to have the priesthood ordained upon you only by the laying-on of hands.

Within my Church priesthood (legally) is by invitation only. However, anyone can claim any title in any system, and each system of belief has it Hierarchy. Christians claim authority by word of God (so do many other beliefs). I claim authority by my own abilities and strengths. No One need ordain me.

As to Papal authority, It, like all other authority/power come from the permission of those granting the authority. I.E. the faithfull.

I would far more likely trust a self-proclaimed "man of god" than I would someone whose title was bestowed upon him by another "man of God"

I would most trust someone who Lives his life by the way he speaks.

Jim

Hmm... maybe we both have different conceptions of what the priesthood is. Care to explain what you think it is?

In the LDS church, the short definition of what Priesthood is: the ultimate plan of service, the power to act in God's name.

Hmm... maybe we both have different conceptions of what the priesthood is. Care to explain what you think it is?

In the LDS church, the short definition of what Priesthood is: the ultimate plan of service, the power to act in God's name.

In the CoS "Priesthood" is a legal title. It is bestowed for service to the Church. The power to act as a Satanist however, is not limited to church members. Ultimately, each Satanist is both his own priest and redeemer, responsible for his own actions and thoughts.

Jim

Hmm... maybe we both have different conceptions of what the priesthood is. Care to explain what you think it is?

In the LDS church, the short definition of what Priesthood is: the ultimate plan of service, the power to act in God's name.

In the CoS "Priesthood" is a legal title. It is bestowed for service to the Church. The power to act as a Satanist however, is not limited to church members. Ultimately, each Satanist is both his own priest and redeemer, responsible for his own actions and thoughts.

JimUmm... satanist? I thought you were joking... what is a satanist?

bump

Been trying to get back to this thread for a while - server issues hey.

I recommend reading Ch3 'A Church with Authority' of Thomas Bokenkotter's A Concise History of the Catholic Church. It's a great book, and that's the relevent chapter. I'm not quite sure whether or not Bokenkotter is a Catholic or not -- he's very even handed.

Argh, no time now, but I'll post some excerpts later tonight.

Oh, I might be too drunk. Maybe tomorrow.

Raysia,
There seems to be a common practice going on reguarding ordainment of a preisthood upon a person. Your faith goes for the laying on of hands. Others go through congregational prayer services. Still other just accept the persons word that they have heard the call from God and proceed to make them a legal priest, pastor, minister, or whatever their faith calls their leaders.
The one thing all these faiths have in common is there is some form of a ceremony to commemorate the person becoming a leader of the church.
Your original question started off with a query about the Pope of the Catholic Faith. The same factors are in place for obtaining the Popedom as for reaching the pennacle of leadership in any faith. Someone has to be proclaimed the top leader. When the leader dies, or leaves office for some reason, there is a replacement chosen (by various other leaders usually). This choice is made by mortals in all faiths (they may seek God's guidance before making their choice).
In summing all this up, I would say, there is no one religeon who has the ultimate claim on being lead directly by anyone, who was annointed into priesthood by God, himself. Only leaders annointed by humans trying to act in God's best interest.

Raysia,
There seems to be a common practice going on reguarding ordainment of a preisthood upon a person. Your faith goes for the laying on of hands. Others go through congregational prayer services. Still other just accept the persons word that they have heard the call from God and proceed to make them a legal priest, pastor, minister, or whatever their faith calls their leaders.
The one thing all these faiths have in common is there is some form of a ceremony to commemorate the person becoming a leader of the church.
Your original question started off with a query about the Pope of the Catholic Faith. The same factors are in place for obtaining the Popedom as for reaching the pennacle of leadership in any faith. Someone has to be proclaimed the top leader. When the leader dies, or leaves office for some reason, there is a replacement chosen (by various other leaders usually). This choice is made by mortals in all faiths (they may seek God's guidance before making their choice).
In summing all this up, I would say, there is no one religeon who has the ultimate claim on being lead directly by anyone, who was annointed into priesthood by God, himself. Only leaders annointed by humans trying to act in God's best interest.

Actually, the selection of a Pope is a bit intricate. Any baptized Catholic male in good standing with the Church can technically become Pope, although custom dictates that he must be a member oy the celibate clergy. This, however, is only custom...not canon law.

The Pope is voted on by all the Cardinals. There must be a certain majority, or a re-vote is held. And then another. And another...ad nauseum, until the majority emerges. I can't remember if tradition also limits the amount of food the Cardinals have access too...regardless, they all meet in one Church (can't remember which one) and are basically locked in there until they decide.

:D Aiera