www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Ukrainian Catholic omophorion

Thanks to Google, I found a full-color version of that particular (polemical) representation of St. Mark:

[Linked Image]

Most other icons of St. Mark that I have seen show him with the great omoforion.

Dn. David

Since the current Ruthenian Archieraticon does not mention either the small omophorion or the removing and resumption of the omoporion, ajk asks:


I would argue that the recent "ruthenian" archieraticon is in general a poor edition, which seems to have been done hastily and to show several signs of slip-shod research. Father Cyril Korolevsky is probably spinning in his grave. If we look at more credible editions from the "Ruthenian" tradition, we find much better work.

Fr. Serge

This is certainly an issue that needs to be explored further. Having myself nothing to add at this time, I would ask those who do to start a new thread on this matter, and hopefully begin by supplying some factual content.

Father Serge has a point. In reviewing the Slavonic edition, my wife found a number of errors running from omissions to transpositions, to simple vocabulary and grammatical errors. Nonetheless, it is possible to reconstruct what was missing and correct what was wrong.

Again, I would ask those in the know to consider starting a thread and sharing if possible at least some of the specifics.

Going to the subject of this thread and previous posts:


To what extent is the omission of all mention of the small omophorion, as noted, and therefore any rubrics implied or explicit concerning which omophorion is worn, a defect, innovation, omission, etc. in the present edition?

The "small omophorion" apparently didn't exist as a concept when the latin edition was compiled for the Kyivan use... tho as a means of wearing the omophorion, it might have.

Thing is, the rubrics for the kyivan use simply list it being put on at the beginning, and taken off at the end.

I can easily see a bishop, lacking subdeacons, simply draping it around his neck for the liturgy; I can see others pre-pinning it to pall-shape themselves, and simply having it "dropped on" them.

Adding the "small" omophorion to the Amrican-Ruthenian Church would be an innovation, as it would add rubrics and require determining when to wear it and why.

(Ironically, the sewn-to-pall form is not an innovation as much as an economia... an adaptation to a lack of subdeacons... and is not uniquely Catholic, tho' more common due to the more priest-focused praxis.)

The Old Ritualist usage greatly favors the great omophorion, and thus the Ruthenian Archieraticon is not inconsistent with the pre-Nikonian usage in only mentioning the great omophorion.

But even amongst the Old Ritualists the small omophorion can be found amongst the edinovertsy:
[Linked Image]

On the other hand I've not seen any bishops of the Bila Krinitsa and related non-edinovertsy soglasy in anything other than the great omophorion. A hieromonk friend in one of the Bila Krinitsa groups tells me to his knowledge they do not use anything other than the great omophorion (sometimes worn directly over the phelon).

Our own Patriarch Lubomyr has been known to wear the small omophorion:
[Linked Image]

Not sure of the point; the "latin edition" was first published in 1973 or 1975.

A number of questions remain.

How did the present small omophor develop from the great, presumably as reflected in the icon in a previous post, link ? There one clearly sees the great omophor (narrower as was the original apparently) folded in half and just draped over the shoulders. Was it cut and sown or just cut and half used and widened to produce the present form? Or is there some other explanation? Is this small omophor also to be considered a result of laziness and another version of the clip-on-tie? How close a resemblance is it, the small omophor, in relation to the way the great is worn? Is the lack of mention of the small in the Ruthenian Recension a deficiency in the Ruthenian Archieratikon or a reflection of a more primitive, pristine usage?

The latin I'm referring to is the one sent to Rome as the reference at the time of unification; it's the source of some historical debate; there are comparable slavonic editions. The latin edition was written specifically for checking for heresy and liturgical form at time of union.

In any case, the point is, the rubrics since the time on union for the Ruthenians lack reference to the small omophor, and to any fiddling about with the omophor during the liturgy once it's placed on the bishop; adding it now would be an innovation.

I was unaware of the Latin edition.


It would seem so to me. Serious criticism was raised about the Recension Archieratikon but it turns out then to be a non sequitur regarding the small omophorion and more bluster than substance overall. That also seems to be an apt description of this thread's criticism of the Ruthenian form of the great omophorion taking into account the apparent evolution and motivation regarding the small omophorion. Actually, based on the given evidence, the Ruthenian form is a more authentic rendering than the small. And the present accepted "traditional" style of the great, with its buttons and chains and fastenings requiring subdeaconal maintenance and a made-up ritual to get it off and the small on -- with the hierarch still at times looking like he's falling out of the vestment -- has its own issues.

One needs to remain aware that in 1596 and 1646, when printing was just beginning, the science of rubrics was also just developing, so there is no cause to be surprised that some rubric which we are familiar with now did not appear then - this is no proof that they weren't doing this or that regularly in the sixteenth or seventeenth century.

Many of the extant texts are manuscript copies, which are even less reliable for rubrics - most of the time manuscript books include few or no rubrics, because the Church could not afford the cost (students in that area of the field can show us the exact number of cows required to produce a Gospel Book, for example).

Fr. Serge

Quite true. The question then remains -- and it is a question:

Putting it a bit differently: Is the small omophorion's absence from the Ruthenian Archieratikon (Rome, 1973/1975) a goof on the part of the redactors or intentional, and if the latter, based on proper liturgical form? If it is the case of "a more primitive, pristine usage," is it an authentic aspect of the Ruthenian usage as noted by Card. Tisserant in his 1941 letter to the Ruthenian hierarchy? Tisserant wrote:

It was not so much a question of the intelligence of the editors in 1600, but of whether the benefactors were willing to pay to include the rubrics and, if so, to what extent.

There is no reason to think that the Greek-Catholics did not use the small omophorion in 1600. Even in my own lifetime, I've often encountered service-books in which an enterprising subdeacon has hand-written the pontifical rubrics.

Fr. Serge

Just to be clear, I had the present (1973/1975) editors in mind:


Ok, or that they didn't. Proof? Documentation? As I've asked about the dating of the icon showing an earlier form of what would evolve (I presume) into the small omophorion ( Post 349934) , how early is there an actual witness?

Some omophorions in the Armenian Rite follow the "correct" folded style, and some bishops favor the "pallium" style similar to what is described above. I notice the correct style looks better and more secure than the simplified style. It seems that the Bishops from Etchmiadzin favor the traditional style while those from Antelias more often use the simplified version.