[G Larry]

Ok, I back up off of the floor now.
Thanks for the laugh.

He didn’t need them for that!

You really believe He conferred that power only for their lifetime? Quite the waste I’d say. But then anti-Catholics have to have some warpped process to explain away the truth.

So just what did they bind and loose during their lifetimes that was so important?

[annalex]

Besides, if Christ meant for the Apostles to bind and loose on His behalf, but NOT pass that authority on to their successors, then that constraint should be in the New Testament somewhere. But it isn’t. Instead, we read how Apostle Paul ordained Timothy and Titus, and instructed them to ordain others, and Peter endeavored his “tabernacle” to survive through generations.

[Tao Yin]

I guess the big difference is our view of the Apostle's mission. Was it to lead the church or found the church?

Reading the creed, I believe in an Apostolic church not because the Apostles lead the church, but because the Apostles founded the church.

Later I'll reread some key passages, but the role of the Apostles seem pretty clear to me.

[Tao Yin]

Nope, two different roles. Leadership is different than foundation. The Apostles served in both roles. They passed on the leadership roles, but not the foundational roles. Others can build on that foundation, but what they build is not foundation. To laugh at the idea that the Apostles completed the foundation is small minded and not Biblical: the prophets and apostles, with Jesus as the corner stone.