The following was moved from a post in another thread (my apologies, but the capability to copy a text and have it appear under the poster's name doesn't exist):

Please note the correct spelling of omophorion.

It is not particularly surprising to note variations in the designs of the various vestments; one may easily note several such variations.

However, the omophorion that you mention noticing among Ukrainian (and "Ruthenian") Greek-Catholics is something of an exception: it is often cut and sewn to be more "convenient" and preclude the traditional folding and buttons. This is sheer laziness.

Fr. Serge

Possibly, Fr. Serge you could provide an explanation in regards to the number of horizontal bars [3 for bishops; 4 for metropolitans; 5 for the patriarch] as found on the Ukrainian Catholic omophoria? This does not seem to be the Orthodox practice. From whence does this "uniate" custom come?

As an aside, the omophorion worn by most Ukrainian Catholic bishops reminds me of the clip-on neck tie: very handy for those who must get dressed up but can't be bothered to wear the real item.
With thanks.

Our previous UGCC bishop used to wear a real Omophorian with all the buttons on although he wore it differently from Orthoodox bishops. More like a very large pallium. Our current bishop I dont think actually owns a real omophorion. Only those imitation ones from what I have seen. Then we are very low church over here.

Did the original Omophorion then have buttons?

Liturgical vestments get stylized, sometimes poorly sometimes not. Is the epitrachil, pre-buttoned or sown an abuse for convenience, another clip-on tie? What of those orars -- sown in a most novel manner to lay flat at the hip (and said to be the joining of two orars!) -- sometimes worn by protodeacons?

What is the history and origin of the small omophor? Is it the real thing?

I'll respond to the omophorion question. Traditional omophoria come in two genearal flavors: Russian style and Greek style. The Russian style buttons onto loops on the bishops saccos, also in a few places the the Russian style omophor buttons to itself to help hold the garment in place. The Greek style omophor does not button to the saccos at all, it has three button/loop connections that hold it 'together.' The Greek omophor is further anchored into place by the chains of the bishops panagia and cross, the chains are placed on top of the omophor, wheras with the Russian style the panagia chains are slipped behind the omophor. Now, on to the small omophor, yes, it indeed is "the real thing. In the hierarchical liturgy, the bishop is vested in the "Great omophor" (the one that looks like a great big pallium) prior to the start of liturgy - this is a pretty complex vestment and the bishop needs the help of subdeacons to get vested. At the great enterance (if i recall correctly - I'ts been a long time since I've 'subdeaconed')the subdeacons remove the Great omophor and vest the bishop with the small omophor (which looks like a short fat scarf, or prayer shall that simply rests on the shoulders, both ends hanging down in front). I would guess this development arose probably because it is less likely to get in the bishop's way during anaphora, ordinations, etc. Editorial: I can understand why a bishop may want to dispense with the traditional 'great omophor' from time to time, it is complex, and if your subdeacons don't know thier stuff you are bound for trouble! But, if that is the case, then simply wear the small omophor from start to finish of liturgy - it is a traditional vestment (and I see Antiochian bishops do exactly that on many occasions).

It's not a "uniate" custom at all; bishops of the early Kyivan period can be seen depicted in portraits and icons with bars at the end of the omophorion. This icon of St. Alexis, Metropolitan of Kyiv is a good example:


St. Peter, Metropolitan of Kyiv:

and Kyprian, Metropolitan of Kyiv:


This is yet another case in what is assumed to be a "uniate" practice is actually an adherence to a much older tradition by the Kyivan Church. More bars depicting higher rank has been the norm in military and civil attire since the ancient Greeks, so seeing something like this in ecclesiastical garb should not be so surprising. The standard convention currently is three bars for a bishop, four for a metropolitan, and five for the Patriarch.

Thanks for the iconological examples; they are very helpful. They all have 3 bars which is the usual custom on the great omophorion. This evidence supports my position. My "uniate" comment is in regards to the 4 and 5 bar omophoria. Can you kindly provide icons or scholarly print material that supports your position that the 4 and 5 bars are part of the "early Kyivan period"? Granted that your speculation in regards to civil and military practice might be correct - how do you substantiate the speculation? I am looking for texts or icons.
With thanks,
David, Protodeacon

I wouldn't be caught dead wearing a "clip-on" tie. The overbarred omophorion is purely a Slav Uniate invention. In theory I suppose a Hungarian Metropolitan might wear one (although the present Hungarian Bishop certainly would not!), but there is no Hungarian Metropolitan. The Greeks, Melkites, et al. wouldn't even know what it was.

Fr. Serge

Thank you so much Fr. Serge. And a blessed feast of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist.

I apologize for not reading your question more thoroughly; I mistook the questioning of bars on the omophorion (of whatever number) as a general "uniatization" when responding with evidence from the early Kyivan period. You are correct that three is generally the norm for iconography or illustrations of this period. Regarding the 4th and 5th I noted this to be "standard convention currently", which does appear, as you have concluded, to be a post-Union modification.

There are examples of less than three bars, for example St. John Chrysostom in a Greek icon
Patriarch Nikon is depicted in two:


While it certainly does appear that the 4th and 5th are post-Union of Brest vintage, three does not seem to be a completely fixed number given the available iconographic corpus, as other icons depicting omophoria sometimes have one or no bars. I'll not disagree with the "overbarred" comment of the previous poster.

Thank you Fr. Deacon for the examples.

On a not unrelated tangent, the "bib" or "rapid deployment" omophorion does appear to be entirely a uniate creation. Unfortunately this thing has spread to multiple jurisdictions including some outside of the Byzantine ritual family, as even several Armenian Catholic bishops (including the Catholicos) have worn this on occasion.

Yuck!
I still don't see why EC bishops don't simply use the small omophor if they want to avoid the complexities of the great omophorion. I have a question. I've seen (some) Ruthenian and UGCC bishops wearing rather odd looking miters. I thought I read somewhere that these were 'collapsible' miters that could be folded flat and easily stored for travel. Does this ring a bell with anyone?

Some of the Bishops do have mitres that fold down; I know that Metropolitan Basil, of blessed memory, had a few that he would take with him.

What is the origin, background and evolution of the small omophor? Is it specifically mentioned in any Archieratikon? Is it specifically noted in the Ruthenian Recension Archieratikon?

As per the evolution of the small omophorion I can offer little more than conjecture. Traditionally, the bishop is vested in the small omophorion at the end of the Great Entrance, just prior to the start of the Anaphora. It is less cumbersome and less likely to get in the way duriung anaphora, ordinations, etc. I do not have the Ruthenian books so I cannot speak to that issue either. I did serve as a subdeacon at St. Vladimir's Seminary for 3 years, which follows the Russian books on the hierarchical liturgy. So, at very least, the small omophor would be sanctified by the antiquity of its use.

Thanks for this information. I've asked in order to try to get beyond conjecture. Tradition is often what we are doing because it is, of course, correct; antiquity is what took place prior to one's lifetime.

Exactly,and I took that to be your meaning. I did dig around in my little 'library' and unfortunatly I still cannot cite you to a good print source. Just trying to reassure that this wasn't 'make it up as you go along liturgy!'

The small omoforion was simply the great omoforion folded in half. Somewhere in my files, I have a photocopy of an engraving of St. Mark of Ephesus depicted wearing the omoforion exactly in this manner. A contemporary example of this would be Bishop John of Caracas (ROCOR):



Since he is well-versed in Old Rite practices, I will presume that this is done by Old Rite hierarchs.

Dn. David

If I get a chance, I'll ask my friend who is a member of the Church of the Nativity in Erie if he remembers what Bishop Daniel, of blessed memory, did. I know that from all of the pictures he did not wear the Sakkos as for the omophor I do not know because all pictures show him wearing the Great Omophor.



Some information I found from Orthodoxwiki:

It's interesting that the Greek style of the bishop on the left in Deacon David's example has the two halves parallel to each other while the Russian style is longer and crossed in the middle. In the following link the two omophoria on the left are Russian (Patriarch Alexei in the middle) while the bishop on the right is Antiochian with a more Greek-style small omophorion: http://www.antiochian.org/assets/asset.php?type=image&id=6885

Re: Chtec's post. Yes, that makes sense (the photo is helpful as well)

The small omophorion is not mentioned in the Ruthenian Archieratikon published in Rome in 1973 (1975) by the Congregation for the Eastern Churches.

Neither are there any rubrics [directions] for the omophorion to be removed for example at the reading of the gospel. The omophorion goes on at the vesting and appears not to be removed until after the Divine Liturgy when the bishop divests.

However, some of the UGC bishops make use of the small omophorion and in regards to it follow the practice of their Orthodox brethren.

So it's roughly half the length?




Mark of Ephesus

Died June 3, 1444 (age 52) Constantinople

Canonized 1734, Constantinople by Patriarch Seraphim of Constantinople
link

So, 15th or 18th century; but when was the engraving made?

Thank you for this information.

That is understandable. My own opinion: Why not keep it simple and embrace our own (Ruthenian Recension) liturgical patrimony?

Here is a scan of the engraving of St. Mark:



Sadly, I forgot to write down the title of the book from which I copied it; I think it was a book about the Council of Florence.

Regardless, the folded omoforion is clearly visible.

Dn. David

This clearly shows the omophorion worn as "folded in half." There is still the question of when the engraving was made to determine the witness to the usage. He is designated as O Agios which would be no earlier than 1734 if one goes by the date of his canonization which was referenced in a previous post.

BUT isn't the present small omophorion just one piece?

Everybody seems to be working under the assumption that there was uniformity in the design, cut and wearing of vestments prior to the 19th century. Big assumption. While there may have been a consensus about the general appearance of vestments, given the absence of patterns, the range of sewing skill among seamstresses, and the types of materials available, wide variations can be seen not only between Churches, but between regions within Churches. Look in any museum catalogue and you'll see plenty of examples.

Not everybody; my presumption is just the opposite:



There is some historical evidence of how the omophorion looked and how it was worn. The evolution of the small omophorion from the great -- that's what I'm being told, and that as a convenience along with its incorporation into the ritual of the liturgy -- and its stylization, from the form in the engraving to the present, is the present focus of my inquiry.

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



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:


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:

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.

At times this weekend Kyr Hlib was vested in a small Omophorion