Pope Benedict XVI

The Church Will Become Small

28 Comments

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 388

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 394

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 400

Pope Benedict

Source: Catholic Education Resource Center | Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI)

The church will become small and will have to start afresh more or less from the beginning.

She will no longer be able to inhabit many of the edifices she built in prosperity. As the number of her adherents diminishes . . . she will lose many of her social privileges. . . As a small society, [the Church] will make much bigger demands on the initiative of her individual members….

It will be hard-going for the Church, for the process of crystallization and clarification will cost her much valuable energy. It will make her poor and cause her to become the Church of the meek . . . The process will be long and wearisome as was the road from the false progressivism on the eve of the French Revolution — when a bishop might be thought smart if he made fun of dogmas and even insinuated that the existence of God was by no means certain . . . But when the trial of this sifting is past, a great power will flow from a more spiritualized and simplified Church. Men in a totally planned world will find themselves unspeakably lonely. If they have completely lost sight of God, they will feel the whole horror of their poverty. Then they will discover the little flock of believers as something wholly new. They will discover it as a hope that is meant for them, an answer for which they have always been searching in secret.

And so it seems certain to me that the Church is facing very hard times. The real crisis has scarcely begun. We will have to count on terrific upheavals. But I am equally certain about what will remain at the end: not the Church of the political cult, which is dead already, but the Church of faith. She may well no longer be the dominant social power to the extent that she was until recently; but she will enjoy a fresh blossoming and be seen as man’s home, where he will find life and hope beyond death.

Mattingly: Pope Benedict, President Obama and Religious Freedom

3 Comments

Terry Mattingly

– Source: The Republic | Terry Mattingly

Pope Benedict XVI cut to the chase when meeting with the visiting bishops from Washington, D.C., Baltimore and the U.S. armed services.

The pope mentioned “religious freedom” in the third sentence of his Jan. 19 remarks at the Vatican and he never let up — returning to this hot topic again and again.

The bottom line, he said, is that America’s once-strong political consensus has “eroded significantly in the face of powerful new cultural currents which are not only directly opposed to core moral teachings of the Judeo-Christian tradition, but increasingly hostile to Christianity as such.”

It doesn’t matter if these attacks originate in “radical secularism,” “radical individualism,” a “merely scientific rationality” or suppressive forms of “majority rule,” said Benedict, during one in an ongoing series of meetings with American bishops. Catholic leaders must strive to defend church teachings in ways that reach all believers in their care — including Catholic politicians.

Within hours, these American bishops had good cause to reflect on one Benedict passage in particular.

[…]

Read the entire article on The Republic website.

Pope to American Bishops: Secularism Threatens Liberty, Church Must Respond

8 Comments

Pope Benedict

Freedom detached from moral truth, said Pope Benedict XVI in a recent address to American Catholic Bishops, reflects an “extreme individualism” that requires response from the (Catholic) Church. This is an argument not limited to Catholics alone (see: “Has Europe Lost its Soul” by Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks) and includes the Orthodox as well (see: “With the Rise of Militant Secularism, Rome and Moscow Make Common Cause“).

“The Gospel,” said Pope Benedict, “proclaims unchanging moral truths,” as indeed it does. If those truths are not proclaimed, particularly in the cauldron of moral confusion that characterizes Western Culture today, then we can conclude that fidelity to the Gospel does not exist. This is a hard saying but true: if religious leaders remain silent on the moral issues that have become flashpoints in the culture, then it is time to question whether they really comprehend this gospel that they say they guard.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ cannot be conflated to a political ideology or any other human contrivance. If any structure seeks to contain the Gospel — to claim the Gospel as the justification for whatever the goals of that structure might be, then that structure will face obliteration. The rock falls and crushes anyone who seeks to possess it. This includes ecclesiastical structures as well. If a Church leaves off the Gospel and seeks instead its self-perpetuation and the inevitable accommodation with the dominant culture that this calculation requires, it will face judgment. If it remains unrepentant, it will die.

Source: The Vatican

Thursday, 19 January 2012

Dear Brother Bishops,

I greet all of you with fraternal affection and I pray that this pilgrimage of spiritual renewal and deepened communion will confirm you in faith and commitment to your task as Pastors of the Church in the United States of America. As you know, it is my intention in the course of this year to reflect with you on some of the spiritual and cultural challenges of the new evangelization.

One of the most memorable aspects of my Pastoral Visit to the United States was the opportunity it afforded me to reflect on America’s historical experience of religious freedom, and specifically the relationship between religion and culture. At the heart of every culture, whether perceived or not, is a consensus about the nature of reality and the moral good, and thus about the conditions for human flourishing. In America, that consensus, as enshrined in your nation’s founding documents, was grounded in a worldview shaped not only by faith but a commitment to certain ethical principles deriving from nature and nature’s God. Today that consensus has eroded significantly in the face of powerful new cultural currents which are not only directly opposed to core moral teachings of the Judeo-Christian tradition, but increasingly hostile to Christianity as such.

For her part, the Church in the United States is called, in season and out of season, to proclaim a Gospel which not only proposes unchanging moral truths but proposes them precisely as the key to human happiness and social prospering (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 10). To the extent that some current cultural trends contain elements that would curtail the proclamation of these truths, whether constricting it within the limits of a merely scientific rationality, or suppressing it in the name of political power or majority rule, they represent a threat not just to Christian faith, but also to humanity itself and to the deepest truth about our being and ultimate vocation, our relationship to God. When a culture attempts to suppress the dimension of ultimate mystery, and to close the doors to transcendent truth, it inevitably becomes impoverished and falls prey, as the late Pope John Paul II so clearly saw, to reductionist and totalitarian readings of the human person and the nature of society.

With her long tradition of respect for the right relationship between faith and reason, the Church has a critical role to play in countering cultural currents which, on the basis of an extreme individualism, seek to promote notions of freedom detached from moral truth. Our tradition does not speak from blind faith, but from a rational perspective which links our commitment to building an authentically just, humane and prosperous society to our ultimate assurance that the cosmos is possessed of an inner logic accessible to human reasoning. The Church’s defense of a moral reasoning based on the natural law is grounded on her conviction that this law is not a threat to our freedom, but rather a “language” which enables us to understand ourselves and the truth of our being, and so to shape a more just and humane world. She thus proposes her moral teaching as a message not of constraint but of liberation, and as the basis for building a secure future.

The Church’s witness, then, is of its nature public: she seeks to convince by proposing rational arguments in the public square. The legitimate separation of Church and State cannot be taken to mean that the Church must be silent on certain issues, nor that the State may choose not to engage, or be engaged by, the voices of committed believers in determining the values which will shape the future of the nation.

In the light of these considerations, it is imperative that the entire Catholic community in the United States come to realize the grave threats to the Church’s public moral witness presented by a radical secularism which finds increasing expression in the political and cultural spheres. The seriousness of these threats needs to be clearly appreciated at every level of ecclesial life. Of particular concern are certain attempts being made to limit that most cherished of American freedoms, the freedom of religion. Many of you have pointed out that concerted efforts have been made to deny the right of conscientious objection on the part of Catholic individuals and institutions with regard to cooperation in intrinsically evil practices. Others have spoken to me of a worrying tendency to reduce religious freedom to mere freedom of worship without guarantees of respect for freedom of conscience.

Here once more we see the need for an engaged, articulate and well-formed Catholic laity endowed with a strong critical sense vis-à-vis the dominant culture and with the courage to counter a reductive secularism which would delegitimize the Church’s participation in public debate about the issues which are determining the future of American society. The preparation of committed lay leaders and the presentation of a convincing articulation of the Christian vision of man and society remain a primary task of the Church in your country; as essential components of the new evangelization, these concerns must shape the vision and goals of catechetical programs at every level.

In this regard, I would mention with appreciation your efforts to maintain contacts with Catholics involved in political life and to help them understand their personal responsibility to offer public witness to their faith, especially with regard to the great moral issues of our time: respect for God’s gift of life, the protection of human dignity and the promotion of authentic human rights. As the Council noted, and I wished to reiterate during my Pastoral Visit, respect for the just autonomy of the secular sphere must also take into consideration the truth that there is no realm of worldly affairs which can be withdrawn from the Creator and his dominion (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 36). There can be no doubt that a more consistent witness on the part of America’s Catholics to their deepest convictions would make a major contribution to the renewal of society as a whole.

Dear Brother Bishops, in these brief remarks I have wished to touch upon some of the pressing issues which you face in your service to the Gospel and their significance for the evangelization of American culture. No one who looks at these issues realistically can ignore the genuine difficulties which the Church encounters at the present moment. Yet in faith we can take heart from the growing awareness of the need to preserve a civil order clearly rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition, as well as from the promise offered by a new generation of Catholics whose experience and convictions will have a decisive role in renewing the Church’s presence and witness in American society. The hope which these “signs of the times” give us is itself a reason to renew our efforts to mobilize the intellectual and moral resources of the entire Catholic community in the service of the evangelization of American culture and the building of the civilization of love. With great affection I commend all of you, and the flock entrusted to your care, to the prayers of Mary, Mother of Hope, and cordially impart my Apostolic Blessing as a pledge of grace and peace in Jesus Christ our Lord.

Pope Benedict XVI

With the Rise of Militant Secularism, Rome and Moscow Make Common Cause

25 Comments

Met. Kyrill (before becoming Patriarch) and Pope Benedict

The Acton Institute just published my essay.

Source: Acton Institute | Fr. Johannes L. Jacobse

The European religious press is abuzz over recent developments in Orthodox – Catholic relations that indicate both Churches are moving closer together. The diplomatic centerpiece of the activity would be a meeting of Pope Benedict and Patriarch Kyrill of the Russian Orthodox Church that was first proposed by Pope John Paul II but never realized. Some look to a meeting in 2013 which would mark the 1,700th anniversary of the signing of the Edict of Milan when Constantine lifted the persecution of Christians. It would be the first visit between the Pope of Rome and Patriarch of Moscow in history.

A few short years ago a visit between Pope and Patriarch seemed impossible because of lingering problems between the two Churches as they reasserted territorial claims and began the revival of the faith in post-Soviet Russia, Ukraine and elsewhere. The relationship grew tense at times and while far from resolved, a spirit of deepening cooperation has nevertheless emerged. Both Benedict and Kyrill share the conviction that European culture must rediscover its Christian roots to turn back the secularism that threatens moral collapse.

Both men draw from a common moral history: Benedict witnessed the barbarism of Nazi Germany and Kyrill the decades long communist campaign to destroy all religious faith. It informs the central precept in their public ministry that all social policy be predicated on the recognition that every person has inherent dignity and rights bestowed by God, and that the philosophical materialism that grounds modern secularism will subsume the individual into either ideology or the state just as Nazism and Communism did. If Europe continues its secular drift, it is in danger of repeating the barbarism of the last century or of yielding to Islam.

The deepening relationship does not portend a union between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Roman Catholics are more optimistic about unity because they are less aware of the historical animus that exists between Catholics and Orthodox. Nevertheless, while the increasing cooperation shows the gravity of the threat posed by secularism, it also indicates that the sensitive historical exigencies can be addressed in appropriate ways and times and will not derail the more pressing mission.

The cooperation has also caused the Churches to examine assumptions of their own that may prove beneficial in the long run. The meaning of papal supremacy tops the list.

On the Orthodox side the claims to a universal jurisdictional supremacy of the Patriarch of Rome have been rejected since (indeed, was a cause of) the Great Schism of 1054 (see here and here). That said, the Orthodox see the Pope of Rome as the rightful Patriarch of the Church of Rome and could afford him a primacy of honor in a joint council but not jurisdiction.

On the other side, the Orthodox do not have a Magisterium, a centralized Church structure that speaks for all the Orthodox in the world. This has led to some fractious internal wrangling throughout the centuries although doctrine and teaching has remained remarkably consistent.

It will come as no surprise for anyone to know that the Orthodox have difficulties with some of the claims made by the Catholic Church concerning the precise responsibilities and the nature of the authority associated with the Bishop of Rome. The Catholic Church has long recognized this as a basic difference between the Orthodox and Catholic worlds. The rise of militant secularism, however, and the cultural challenges this creates for Orthodox and Catholic Christians alike, have focused everyone’s minds on how they can cooperate to address these issues of ethics and culture.

Protestants have a stake in the outcome as well particularly as attitudes have softened towards Rome due in large part to Pope John Paul II’s exemplary leadership during the collapse of communism in the last century. Protestant ecclesiology has no real place for priest or pope which makes the nature of discussions between them and the Catholics or Orthodox entirely different. Nevertheless, as the soul denying ramifications of secularism become more evident, an increasing number look to the Catholic and Orthodox Churches for leadership.

The most visible ambassador for the Orthodox Church is Oxford-educated Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev of Volokomansk who runs the Department of External Church Relations of the Russian Orthodox Church. Observers report that a deep respect and even genuine fondness exists between Hilarion and Benedict which has contributed to the recent thaw.

Both of them note with alarm the increasing attacks on the Christian faith in Europe and on Christians themselves in other parts of the world, a development they term “Christophobia.” Hilarion brought these points forward several years back when he first challenged the European Union for omitting any mention of the Christian roots of European civilization in the EU Constitution. That earned him considerable worldwide notice and he has become increasingly outspoken towards any attempts to silence the Christian testimony or dim the historical memory of Christendom.

From the Orthodox side it is clear that the leadership that deals with the concrete issues that affect the decline of the Christian West is emerging from Moscow. One reason is the sheer size of the renewed Russian Orthodox Church. The deeper reason however, is that the Russians have direct experience with the suffering and death that ensues when the light of the Christian faith is vanquished from culture.

Decades before the fall of Communism was even a conceptual possibility for most people, Pope John Paul II prophesied that the regeneration of Europe would come from Russia. At the time many people thought it was the misguided ramblings of a misguided man. It is looking like he knew more than his critics. We are fortunate to have these two leaders, Benedict and Kyrill, to help guide us through the coming difficulties.

Fr. Johannes L. Jacobse is an Orthodox priest in the Antiochian Archdiocese of North and South America. He is president of the American Orthodox Institute and serves on the board of the Institute for Religion and Democracy. He writes frequently on social and cultural issues on his blog and elsewhere.

La Stampa: Divisions in Orthodox Church Hinder Pope’s Meeting with Patriarch of Moscow

2 Comments

We are getting more news from the Catholic/Italian press than we are from Orthodox sources. This report appears reliable; the author has a good grasp of the ecclessiological disagreements between Constantinople and Moscow, particularly the conflict about what constitutes primacy in Orthodoxy. This question must be settled before a Pan-Orthodox Council can take place and before dialogue with Rome can proceed with any seriousness.

Both Constantinople and Moscow have different interests at stake. Moscow sees a working alliance with Rome (not unity) as a practical necessity to re-Christianize Europe in order to roll back the hedonism, moral relativism, lowered value of human life and other afflictions associated with secularism. Constantinople has expressed little interest in Moscow’s (and Rome’s) agenda and prefers instead to focus on global warming and other boutique issues.

Highlights from the article:

In Ravenna, the delegation of the Patriarchate of Moscow decided to withdraw, as a sign of protest against the participation in the event, of members of the so-called Estonian Apostolic Church, founded by the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1996 in Estonia and declared “autonomous” by him, a statute which is not recognised by the Russian Church. Hilarion faced a challenge that was common in a “de-Christianised world”, dominated by consumerism, hedonism, practical materialism and moral relativism.” Thus, only together can we put forward the spiritual and moral values of the Christian faith to the world.” But the greatest difficulties between Rome and Moscow are created indirectly by the division that exists within the Orthodox Church.

And indeed, the ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople has convened a Synaxis (the Greek word for a religious assembly) to which he has invited the ancient Orthodox Churches, that is, the Orthodox Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antiochia and Alexandria, as well as the Archbishop of Cyprus. Two questions were addressed during the meeting held in Istanbul on 1 and 2 September: the situation of Christians in the Middle East and the current state of inter-Orthodox relations ahead of the Pan-Orthodox Council.

The aim was to put an end to the deadlock this Council’s Preparatory Commission is experiencing. This objective was announced over a year ago, in June 2010, during Patriarch Bartholomew I’s historic visit to Russia. The Patriarch’s decision to invite the Archbishop of Cyprus lies in the fact that the Cypriot Church “just like the three Patriarchates, owes its autocephaly to the decision taken in an ecumenical council.” In the letter which convened the Synaxis, Bartholomew I indicated that this singularity “did not intend to exclude the other Orthodox Churches form pan-Orthodox decisions, on the contrary, it is aimed at supporting and favouring unity.”

The idea of convening a synaxis was, indeed, met by strong criticism from the Patriarchate of Moscow, according to what was said on 21 June by metropolitan Hilarion, President of the Department for External Church Relations. At the time, the metropolitan said “he did not agree that one particular group of Churches should consider itself “the pillar” of world Orthodoxy based on the fact that autocephaly is older than the other Churches,” pointing out that “an attempt is being made to divide Orthodoxy into “first and second rate” Churches. If we wish to prepare properly and to carry forward the Pan-Orthodox Council, we must support the ecclesiological concepts that unite all Orthodox Churches and not create new concepts which only bring division and chaos,” he affirmed.

Full article follows.

Source: La Stampa (Vatican Insider) | October 3, 2011

The Orthodox Church has become convinced that together with the primacy, synodality buttresses the government and the Church’s organisation

Giacomo Galeazzi, vatican city

After metropolitan Hilarion’s visit to Castel Gandolfo had brought the meeting between Benedict XVI and Moscow’s Patriarch, Kyril, closer, the primacy dispute between the Eastern Orthodox Churches, has re-emerged as an obstacle. Internal divisions between Orthodoxy seem capable of slowing the Pope’s path towards his historic face to face meeting with the Russian Patriarch, which would probably take place on “neutral ground”, Bari for example.

One of the main sore points, are the principles for the declaration of the Orthodox Churches’ autonomy (an autocephalous proclamation). This has caused the most friction between the, especially between the Greek and Russian Orthodox Churches. The latter holds the majority in Orthodoxy, as it has been autocephalous since 1488. Still, now, more than ever, significant steps are being taken towards advancing dialogue between the Holy See and the Orthodox faith, on the relationship between primacy and synodality in the Church and on the importance of spiritual ecumenism, in view of a complete and clear unity between all Christians. Even Vatican Radio wrote that Hilarion’s arrival in Castel Gandolfo opened the way for new hope.

Between Rome and Moscow, the situation already seems clear, particularly the question of the “prótos-kephalé” ministry – the “supreme head” of the Church – on a local level (the Bishop), on a regional level (the Patriarch) and on a universal level (the Bishop of Rome), applying Canon 34 of the Apostles (a fundamental text for Eastern ecclesiology) to all three levels, in a similar way. In this sense, under Benedict XVI’s pontificate, a fundamental agreement was reached between Catholics and the Orthodox Church made on a common theological, ecclesiological platform, on which the two denominations based the discussion regarding the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

The Orthodox Church reached the conclusion that, just like primacy, synodality constitutes the government and the Church organisation’s supporting framework. An encouraging move towards mutual understanding and the identification of common elements between them. The only problems that remain are essentially related to hermeneutics, that is, the interpretation of the word of God, as it is testified in the Holy Scriptures and in the living tradition of the Church. There are also urgent questions related to anthropology and ecclesiology.

Archbishop Hilarion of Volokolamsk, President of the Department for External Church Relations of the Patriarchate of Moscow acknowledged Benedict XVI in light of the new situation between the Catholic Church and the Patriarchate of Moscow: “We have overcome all the tensions that have existed over the years and our relations are now normal, peaceful and even positive and constructive.” Hilarion expressed the high esteem he felt towards Benedict XVI, who is thought very highly of within the Russian Orthodox Church. The Archbishop reflected on the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Church’s communion during the first millennium, when the Great Schism of 1054 had not yet taken place.

The focus is on how the content of the primacy of St. Peter’s successor, evolved during the second millennium, after the split between the two confessions, particularly after the First and Second Vatican Council. The subject had already been discussed in depth on occasion of the tenth Plenary Assembly of the mixed Commission which met in the Italian city of Ravenna, between 8 and 14 October 2007. Thirty Catholic delegates and 30 Orthodox representatives gathered to reflect on the topic: “The ecclesiological and canonical consequences of the sacramental nature the Church: ecclesiastic communion, conciliarity and authority in the Church.”

In Ravenna, the delegation of the Patriarchate of Moscow decided to withdraw, as a sign of protest against the participation in the event, of members of the so-called Estonian Apostolic Church, founded by the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1996 in Estonia and declared “autonomous” by him, a statute which is not recognised by the Russian Church. Hilarion faced a challenge that was common in a “de-Christianised world”, dominated by consumerism, hedonism, practical materialism and moral relativism.” Thus, only together can we put forward the spiritual and moral values of the Christian faith to the world.” But the greatest difficulties between Rome and Moscow are created indirectly by the division that exists within the Orthodox Church.

And indeed, the ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople has convened a Synaxis (the Greek word for a religious assembly) to which he has invited the ancient Orthodox Churches, that is, the Orthodox Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antiochia and Alexandria, as well as the Archbishop of Cyprus. Two questions were addressed during the meeting held in Istanbul on 1 and 2 September: the situation of Christians in the Middle East and the current state of inter-Orthodox relations ahead of the Pan-Orthodox Council.

The aim was to put an end to the deadlock this Council’s Preparatory Commission is experiencing. This objective was announced over a year ago, in June 2010, during Patriarch Bartholomew I’s historic visit to Russia. The Patriarch’s decision to invite the Archbishop of Cyprus lies in the fact that the Cypriot Church “just like the three Patriarchates, owes its autocephaly to the decision taken in an ecumenical council.” [Like Estonia?] In the letter which convened the Synaxis, Bartholomew I indicated that this singularity “did not intend to exclude the other Orthodox Churches form pan-Orthodox decisions, on the contrary, it is aimed at supporting and favouring unity.”

The idea of convening a synaxis was, indeed, met by strong criticism from the Patriarchate of Moscow, according to what was said on 21 June by metropolitan Hilarion, President of the Department for External Church Relations. At the time, the metropolitan said “he did not agree that one particular group of Churches should consider itself “the pillar” of world Orthodoxy based on the fact that autocephaly is older than the other Churches,” pointing out that “an attempt is being made to divide Orthodoxy into “first and second rate” Churches. If we wish to prepare properly and to carry forward the Pan-Orthodox Council, we must support the ecclesiological concepts that unite all Orthodox Churches and not create new concepts which only bring division and chaos,” he affirmed.

At the end of August, the Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew I and metropolitan Hilarion, met on the Turkish Island of Imbros (not in Fanar, the Headquarters of the Patriarchate of Constantinople). The visit was interpreted as a sign of détente between them. The Patriarchate of Moscow pointed out that the meeting lasted two days, 21 and 22 August. This Sunday, Patriarch Bartholomew who is originally from Imbros, wanted to show metropolitan Hilarion the places where he grew up.

After reciting the vespers together, in the Church of the Dormition of the St. Theodores, the Patriarch publicly addressed the metropolitan, thanking him for the work his Department did for relations between the two Patriarchates. “Naturally, this does not mean that no clouds will ever form over their relationship, that no problems will ever arise, but we are trying to overcome them and resolve them together, in order to carry on our harmonious collaboration,” he concluded. Thus, divisions over authority between Orthodox churches are slowing the Benedict XVI and Kyril’s reciprocal efforts to bring the Catholic and Orthodox Churches closer together.

Fatal error: Uncaught Error: Call to undefined function nuthemes_content_nav() in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/themes/prose/archive.php:58 Stack trace: #0 /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-includes/template-loader.php(106): include() #1 /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-blog-header.php(19): require_once('/home/aoiusa/pu...') #2 /home/aoiusa/public_html/index.php(17): require('/home/aoiusa/pu...') #3 {main} thrown in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/themes/prose/archive.php on line 58