HOME | DD

Theophilia In reply to ??? [2019-10-25 02:14:25 +0000 UTC]

It's not really a matter of Rome "making up her mind" since it's both, but a little more precision is needed in the definitions. Sin is both a kind of disease of the soul, and, when committed, is a crime. But the Church makes the distinction between "Original Sin" (which would be more like the disease aspect of sin) and "Voluntary Sin" which would be the more crime aspect of sin. The Catechism of the Catholic Church deals with the subject in the Chapter on the Fall of Man (CCC 385-421) . But to try to explain briefly:

We exist solely for God. God is the cause of our existence and the reason for our continuing in existence. He is also our final end, our entire happiness, the reason and sum of our existence. Our final goal is to see God as He truly is (Catholics call this "the Beatific Vision"). Since God is infinite and we are finite creatures, this is beyond our power (this is true of the angels as well, since no created being is capable of this). On our natural powers as creatures, we are not capable of achieving that for which we were made; we need God's help (his supernatural life, or "grace"). When Adam and Eve were created, they had (along with their natural human powers: intellect, will, a body animated by a rational soul, etc.) also God's supernatural life infused in their souls, which we call "Original holiness." This was a state of natural friendship with God, with the body being ruled by the soul and the rational intellect guiding the love of the will. However, after the Fall, this harmony between God and man, man and himself, and man and nature was shattered and the original integrity destroyed. Man still retained (and retains) his natural powers of a (human) creature and all those proper to it, but is deprived of the supernatural life of grace (unless supplied by the Sacraments, especially Baptism which removes Original sin, though not the brokenness of concupiscence, which is the disordered inclination to sin). This is the Catholic view. So the "concupiscence" or inclination to evil, is like the "disease" aspect of sin which weakens the will and makes us more susceptible to turning our wills to evil, and "voluntary sin" which is the voluntary turning of our wills toward evil in opposition and defiance of God, and would be the crime aspect, and would be termed "personal sin."

As for the transmission of Original Sin, this is what the Catechism says on the subject:

402 All men are implicated in Adam's sin, as St. Paul affirms: "By one man's disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners": "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned."The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."

403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam's sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the "death of the soul". Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man". By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.

405 Although it is proper to each individual,original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

So original sin is the "disease" transmitted to us by the fall through humanity's representatives and First Parents; Adam and Eve. Being born with original sin (as we all are) is not a personal sin (a "crime" as the Protestant view might have it) because it is not a voluntary action on our part, though it was for Adam and Eve (since it was voluntarily chosen). So the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is actually pretty close to what you described. We say that Mary (from the first instant of her conception, by a special grace from God) was preserved from the stain of original sin. Mary was still a human being, with all the equipment that comes with that: free will, intellect, etc.. So she was free to choose God or sin throughout her whole life (and with much more difficulty than Adam and Eve, who lived in Paradise) she persevered pure and free of sin in a world full of sin and evil. Of her own free choice, she always chose God and retained the perfection of original justice that the first parents had forfeited. So if you will, call it "immunity" but it was a free gift from God, and she kept it unsullied by her own free choice for the rest of her life as well. So in Mary we see the perfect cooperation of grace (the unmerited gift of God) and free-will (the human response to God's free gift of grace).

Ah! De Maria Numquam Satis! ("Of Mary, one can never say enough!")

Catholics make a distinction between the "Ascension" (Christ's returning to the right hand of His Father in Heaven by His own power) and the "Assumption" of the Blessed Virgin Mary ("assumed" into heaven by the power of God, not of her own power). The Catholic Church does not teach one way or the other (whether she simply "fell asleep" or died), all she says is: "that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory."

My own humble opinion is that, although she never sinned and therefore never merited the just penalty of death (the soul's separation from the body), I think that Mary would have wanted to imitate her Son in every way possible and so imitated Him in his death by dying herself (although I think that this separation of the soul from the body would have been very brief,  and furthermore painless, and probably in an ecstasy of love for God. In short, I think if she had died, it would have been out of love and longing for God). But that's my own humble opinion. The Catholic Church, as I said, doesn't explicitly teach one or the other.

I know this was a very long "brief" explanation of the Catholic view, but I can't help but add as a recommendation one of the best theological books I have ever read that very clearly and precisely deals with all of these subjects. It's called "Theology and Sanity" by Frank Sheed . 10/10 Highly recommend. This website also has the full text, though it's in a strange format where the lines are broken up and it reads more like poetry than prose, but anyway:  www.katapi.org.uk/TandS/Conten… His chapter on the Holy Trinity is hands-down the best and most beautiful explanation of the Trinity I have ever read anywhere.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Touch-Not-This-Cat In reply to Theophilia [2019-10-25 07:16:22 +0000 UTC]

The Orthodox perspective is that by speaking of sin in legalisms AT ALL, combined with the spreading and popularization of Aquinas’s naive faith in human reason, is that something like the Protestants’ TOTALLY and unambiguously legalist heresies would be an inevitable extrapolation from it, and that something like the Enlightenment heresy to be an eventual extrapolation from THAT. Look where that has led the world? Only the American experiment has done any good from it.
Even the most orthodox version of the Roman formula developed since Aquinas, as you seem to have stated here, is just too dangerous to use, even if technically correct, (of which I now very much but respectfully doubtful ). Human reason is simply not as flawless as Aquinas suggested. We must leave no wiggle room to rationalize pride and overconfidence in the intellect. Something like 90% of heresy since 1517 can be traced to this root error by a million roads.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Theophilia In reply to Touch-Not-This-Cat [2019-10-26 01:45:30 +0000 UTC]

Being precise in your terminology and definitions is not "legalism." It's the basis of all speech. It's the only way to be clear in what you're talking about. It's when people don't have precise definitions of terminology that theology (and any other topic of conversation at all, really) becomes muddled and confused. Call them "formula" all you want, but clear definitions are not dangerous. Muddled speech is what's dangerous. Precise language is the only way to have any kind of a basic conversation, leading (to what at least is supposed to be the goal of speech), namely, the pursuit of truth. It's the lack of distinction and definition that's really dangerous and leads to heresy or (at best) to misunderstanding and error. I mean, why else would the Church Fathers have to go through the trouble of making words to describe exactly what they meant, like homoousios, Hypostasis, etc.? Is that legalism? To distinguish between Homoousious (of the same substance) and Homoiousios (of similar substance)? Because one is the orthodox theological term and the other is the Arian heresy, and the difference between those words is one "i" but it makes a world of a difference. There are a thousand other theological controversies from the early Church that illustrate this point of the Church laboring to teach more precisely and clearly what was handed down to her from the beginning, hence, all the Ecumenical councils and other church councils. That's not legalism, that's clarity for the sake of truth.

I don't think that's the correct interpretation of of what happened. Or as G.K. Chesterton wrote: As a highly Pagan poet said to me: "The Reformation happened because people hadn't the brains to understand Aquinas." Protestantism wasn't derived from Scholastic thought or philosophy at all. It was actually a radical rejection of the place of human reason and free will (and the human contribution to salvation at all) that the Scholastics had pointed to, in favor of an over-emphasis on the role of grace, to almost the entire exclusion (and in some Protestant traditions, like Calvinism the whole exclusion) of human cooperation with grace. Martin Luther literally said that, "Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.” and "Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding." If Aquinas represented Aristotle, then the Protestant (especially the Lutheran strain) came more from Augustine's neo-Platonism, and was really a perversion of that too. The "Enlightenment" thinking came from Protestantism principally because of it's rejection to authority. Once everyone became their own interpreter of Sacred Scripture without a reference to a higher authority, then the worst excesses of individualism and the elevation of the ego became rather inevitable. But that has nothing to do with Aquinas' faith in human reason. Which, I hope you'll admit (though perhaps for you it's more a question of it's extent), does actually have a place in the spiritual life, since the spiritual life and salvation involves the whole man.

And why do you characterize Aquinas' faith in human reason as "naive"? What is naive about it? I'm reading through the Summa right now and no where does Aquinas even remotely suggest that human reason is flawless. In fact, right at the beginning of his Summa, when discussing God and divine revelation, he says: "It was necessary for our salvation that there be a knowledge revealed by God, besides philosophical science built up by human reason. Firstly, indeed, because the human being is directed to God, as to an end that surpasses the grasp of his reason. "The eye hath not seen, O God, besides Thee, what things Thou hast prepared for them that wait for Thee" (Isaiah 64:4). But the end must first be known by men who are to direct their thoughts and actions to the end. Hence it was necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed human reason should be made known to him by divine revelation." To quote Chesterton again, "St. Thomas exalted God without lowering Man; he exalted Man without lowering Nature. Therefore, he made a cosmos of common sense; terra viventium; a land of the living. His philosophy, like his theology, is that of common sense." I think you might misunderstand what St. Thomas Aquinas actually says.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

Touch-Not-This-Cat In reply to Theophilia [2019-10-26 04:23:53 +0000 UTC]

Sigh. I just lost a comment as long as yours. I’ll have to get back to you.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Touch-Not-This-Cat In reply to Theophilia [2019-10-26 04:22:29 +0000 UTC]

I actually love Chesterton, as you may have guessed, and he has for years inspired me to become a better Christian. His biography on Aquinas is also brilliant. I quote the part on Revolutions and counter revolutions all the time, that and the argument from “The Ball and The Cross” proving that only the Church and strictly natural science can be properly called “progressive”. However, as with science, vigorous Checks and balances must be in place to prevent invalid tangents that may SEEM progressive but are actually dead ends, ultimately. An interesting new development in physical science called “The Electric Universe” hypotheses is a fascinating possible example. Its purports to be the first big challenge to Einstein’s view of gravity and Spacetime, and it seems plausible. What’s more, there were precursors to it that had urged more caution regarding Einstein’s thesis, to not eat it up too vigorously, but they were ignored.
It’s like the theory of Purgatory as currently defined in Roman Dogma; from the Orthodox perspective, it was a valid area for CAREFUL consideration for better understanding of the mysterious 3rd State first mentioned by the warrior prophet, Judas Maccabee, but it should have NEVER gone further than that without a valid Ecumenical Council.
But the theory was leaked and proved very popular within the Western Christian cultural paradigm.
This was VERY irresponsible from the Orthodox perspective, and it also seems more like Rome gave in to popular sentiment then proceeded with sound
Doctrine in declaring it a Dogma, which itself was a false procedure from the Orthodox perspective even if Purgatory ultimately proved to be mostly true, which, you might not have heard, it HAS. A proper Synod has MOSTLY confirmed Rome’s hypothesis as mostly true, although there’s some mysterious parts we refuse to define at this time, such as wether or not the “purging” is actually divine fire, water or something else entirely, (so we cannot at this time call it “Purgatory”, per se, not presuming to understand the cleansing process, we seem to mostly call it 3rd state, at least the sources I’ve seen discussing it). We also, while allowing belief in this and always recommending prayer for the dead, will not Mandate it as Dogma without a valid Ecumenical Council, so we don’t absolutely HAVE to believe in it for salvation.
Anyway, our caution may seem extreme only to eventually prove you mostly right, but it’s just common sense. Impatience in theology and science are VERY dangerous.
A case in point is Generally Modified plant foods. I actually love the THEORY behind it, and would love to see it RESPONSIBLY succeed, but I’ve seen no evidence that anyone is even trying to be responsible. Genetically modified pollen must Not EVER be allowed outside a hermetically sealed greenhouse laboratory, not until super redundant experimentation proves with 99,9% certainty that they will be harmless. They NEVER did that because it was too expensive! If you cannot do it the right Way, don’t do it at all.
Orthodoxy makes the same argument for theological development.
What have been the ultimate fruit of cutting corners? Three wooden idols (which will probably be recovered, unfortunately), and a photo exulting a naked pagan woman suckling a piglet.
You’ve been needing to collectively dial it back since 1980, when JP2 had his chance to formally excommunicate Bugnini....
...but he didn’t. When I realized that, THAT was when I lost faith in Papal supremacy, let alone Infallibility. Yes, I used to be a modern Roman (I still think of myself as a very OLD Style Roman Catholic, as a Western Orthodox I am as we ALL should have been these past 900 years).
I long to see the Western Patriarch return, at last, to Orthodox Catholicism. Antioch is Peter’s backup seat.
If a Heretic Of Bugnini’s magnitude, very nearly on the level of Arch-Traitor, if a POPE can’t resolve to expel THAT and more importantly, declare, Ex Cathedra, his vile life’s work null and void, than the entire thesis of Infallibility and supremacy, from Its earliest roots at Charlemagne’s time, to Dun Scotus, to Newman’s thesis, it all became meaningless to me. When I Read “Liturgical Time Bombs”, if God’s will did, indeed, guide the Popes in the way that has been argued these past 1,000 years, then how did he NOT Excommunicate Bugnini?!
Lest I begin to sound like a Sedevacantist, I assure you, My liberal application of Hanlon’s Razor proved that the Conspiracy went no higher than Bugnini. The Popes were not in on it, and I’m convinced that Paul 6th was ABOUT to excommunicate Bugnini when he sadly died. So, why didn’t JP2? Ostensibly, it is Because it would have been political suicide after Carter made Bugnini look like an international hero during the Iran Hostage crisis.
But that should not happen mattered, God should have compelled him to do it anyway. But if it wasn’t God’s will to compel him, just WHAT use are the Infallibility powers if they cannot make a man act under such dire circumstances?
When I pondered this, Orthodoxy became the only solution.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Theophilia In reply to Touch-Not-This-Cat [2019-10-26 05:48:34 +0000 UTC]

Actually, Purgatory was defined at at least two Ecumenical Councils (Florence and Trent) the first of which was attended by Eastern Orthodox bishops, when there was a brief reunion with Rome, but then the popular Rome-hating sentiment of the people of Constantinople wanted to reject what the bishops had declared, and then the sack of Constantinople in 1453 by the Turks (with the people of Constantinople chanting, "Better the Turkish turban than the Papal Miter." Well, they got their wish) brought the end to the short-lived reunion. Yay politics. In any case, Purgatory is merely the name for the place of purgation. Here's what the CCC says on the matter:
1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.606 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire: (1 Cor 3:15; 1 Pet 1:7.)

As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is Truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.

1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."609 From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God. The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead: "Let us help and commemorate them. If Job's sons were purified by their father's sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them." (St. John Chrysostom)

I can't say I know much about Bugnini, but I'm sure there's were some pretty shady things that happened around Vatican II for a number of reasons, and there are plenty of Modernists who have weaseled their way into the Church to undermine her. But that really has nothing to do with Papal Infallibility. Papal Infallibility has to do with a very narrow context, namely when the Roman Pontiff (the Pope alone or with the College of Bishops--so this would be like an Ecumenical Council) speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, (in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,) he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church. That's a VERY narrow perimeter. It certainly doesn't mean everything any Pope says or does is infallibly true or right. Ex cathedra teachings from the Pope have only happened twice in Church history: the defining of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and the dogma of the Assumption. That's it. And I'm certainly not going to defend everything every pope has ever done. There have been really terrible, wicked popes before, and I'm sure there will be more. Human corruption doesn't destroy God's Church though. We've been through this stuff before as a Church, heck, there have been much darker days before. Once, the whole world groaned to find itself Arian! As depressing and discouraging as a lot of this stuff is, I've read enough Church history to have some perspective on how transient these things are. The Barque of Peter will come through. She always does and always will. It reminds me of the quip Cardinal Ercole Consalvi made when Napoleon boasted that he'd destroy the Catholic Church, he shot back at Napoleon: "If in 1,800 years we clergy have failed to destroy the Church, do you really think that you'll be able to do it?" As St. Paul says, "we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us." I'm not worried about the Church, per se, I'm more worried about the scandal caused to the faithful and how it could cause many to lose their faith.

As for excommunication, I do wish that the pope and bishops would do it more often. So we definitely agree there. I say let's put the fear of God back into people! As St. Thomas Aquinas said, "Mercy without justice is the mother of dissolution; justice without mercy is cruelty.” And we definitely have had WAY too much leniency and thus massive dissolution, vice, and all manner of impudent wickedness. So more public excommunications! Hear! Hear!

As to your other point, the Catholic Church is very cautious and slow (sometimes too slow!) in forming theological opinions and authoritatively dealing with different theological and philosophical issues. Just as in the early church, the reason things are defined is to help the faithful, especially when there are controversies about things fundamental to the faith (like defining the Son as being one substance with the Father, etc, etc, because Arius and others like him had disputed that theological point). So I don't think it's prudent to refuse to define things for the sake of caution, because ultimately, it's about the salvation of souls, and if lack of clear teaching is becoming a stumbling block to people, then it needs to be rectified. The problem that the Eastern Orthodox has isn't so much that they're theologically cautious, it's more that their unity is so shattered that they can't come to any kind of consensus with things currently happening in the world. There is no hierarchical structure or ultimate authority to appeal to, so nothing gets done, and each pretty much bishop does what he wants. It's like a disorganized, nebulous confederacy. Russia is severed from Constantinople, and they're severed from a myriad of other smaller churches, all based on national hierarchies. Heck, though nominally in communion with each other (common beliefs, practices and liturgies) they still don't get along. I think right now the Ukrainian Orthodox want to separate themselves from Russia, and might just go ahead and do it with the Ecumenical Patriarch's blessing. That would cause further fractures and divisions within the Orthodox Church as a whole.

The Catholic Church wants reunion and wants to at least try to work towards reunion (always has, see the Council of Florence, again, among other councils and synods) and the Eastern Orthodox just refuse to have anything to do with Rome. That's telling to me. After all, Christ's prayer to His Father at the Last Supper was that "they might be one, as You Father, and I are one." And I'm sure it deeply grieves God to see so much stubborn division destroying His Church and being such a scandal to the rest of the world instead of the visible means of salvation that it's supposed to be. The name "Satan" after all means "the Divider" so disunity is only playing into his hands and slapping God in the face. In my view, the ones working towards legitimate reunion is where the Spirit of God rests, and that's one of the reasons why I have remained Catholic. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Touch-Not-This-Cat In reply to Theophilia [2019-10-27 08:02:37 +0000 UTC]

I had a long response to this, but I realized after a long argument with my sister on an unrelated matter that I have no business discussing these matters until I’ve come to better myself in several ways. I tend to put “the cart before the horse”, however much I feel like me and my “horse” are stuck behind the cart in a dead end alleyway. There was a hidden door there after all but I’ve just been too lazy to move it. I’m sorry for wasting your time when having this conversation now, at this point in my spiritual development in this way, was just a self centered intellectual ‘indulgence’ on my part.
At most I should have just asked you some key questions and left you alone. Perhaps I’ll be in a better place to discuss these matters in a few years. Please pray for me, a wretched, lazy sinner.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Theophilia In reply to Touch-Not-This-Cat [2019-10-28 04:19:29 +0000 UTC]

Hey, no problem! I don't know how much my prayers are worth, but I can certainly pray for you. I wish you all the best! God bless!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Theophilia In reply to OtsoBeltzak [2018-04-12 22:34:24 +0000 UTC]

That's the beautiful thing about the Virgin Mary (and the Catholic faith in general!)--there are just so many facets to explore! I really think the image of Mary as a type of the Church is beautiful!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

OtsoBeltzak In reply to Theophilia [2018-04-13 20:41:21 +0000 UTC]

Yes, Mary as an image of Holy Mother Church, (and yet also, Mother of the Church) is another facet of Our Lady that really fascinates me!  

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Theophilia In reply to WattanaBo [2014-12-04 20:00:31 +0000 UTC]

Thank you!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Theophilia In reply to LovablyAwkward [2014-02-08 20:43:39 +0000 UTC]

Awww, you're too kind, thank you!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

LovablyAwkward In reply to Theophilia [2014-02-09 00:37:14 +0000 UTC]

Surely it's true! 

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Theophilia In reply to ArthurIglesias [2013-12-09 18:21:27 +0000 UTC]

Thank you!!!! ^^

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Theophilia In reply to petit-chat-noir [2013-08-10 17:17:15 +0000 UTC]

Thanks!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

petit-chat-noir In reply to Theophilia [2013-08-11 00:07:40 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Theophilia In reply to WilderGothica [2013-04-09 01:04:20 +0000 UTC]

Thanks! ^^

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Theophilia In reply to JuanAtaquito [2013-02-12 00:38:00 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Theophilia In reply to haius [2012-11-23 20:57:09 +0000 UTC]

Heheh, I bet the people who comment on all of my pictures get sick of all of my "thank yous!" It's really hard to convey one's gratitude sometimes.

But (hah) THANK YOU very much. You are made of awesome-sauce and I always love reading your comments because they make my day.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

haius In reply to Theophilia [2012-11-30 22:02:23 +0000 UTC]

*takes a bow* I AM GLAD. That is why I comment.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Theophilia In reply to tashy-lou [2012-09-09 20:09:56 +0000 UTC]

Thank you! ^^

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Theophilia In reply to FaeTian [2012-08-07 01:11:54 +0000 UTC]

Awwww, thank you so very much!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Theophilia In reply to japan112899 [2012-06-24 17:37:32 +0000 UTC]

Thank you so very much! You are too kind!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Theophilia In reply to Trishkafibble [2012-06-14 16:20:04 +0000 UTC]

Awwww! Thank you so much! ^^ I hope she likes them.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Theophilia In reply to Marge62 [2012-05-18 23:14:13 +0000 UTC]

Sure, shoot! Send me a note or something. ;- I'm rather swamped with my own projects at the moment, but I'd be more than happy to do a commission.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Theophilia In reply to nestle95 [2012-04-30 00:14:18 +0000 UTC]

I love our Mom.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Theophilia In reply to BohemianBeachcomber [2012-04-22 00:04:55 +0000 UTC]

Thank you! I didn't do that intentionally, but that's what a lot of people have been saying.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

BohemianBeachcomber In reply to Theophilia [2012-04-22 01:04:38 +0000 UTC]

You are most welcome!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Theophilia In reply to A-Little-Tea-Rat [2012-04-15 03:14:36 +0000 UTC]

THANK YOU!!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

A-Little-Tea-Rat In reply to Theophilia [2012-04-17 15:11:37 +0000 UTC]

You're welcome ^-^

👍: 0 ⏩: 0