The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Ioannes Errikos, Deacon Christopher, Eldho Kuriakose, Nixon, SHolmes
5633 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
1 registered members (1 invisible), 164 guests, and 128 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Byzantine Nebraska
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
Upgraded Russian icon corner
Russian Greek Catholic Global Congress
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics34,820
Posts412,389
Members5,633
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4
Re: Ukrainian Catholic omophorion [Re: ajk] #349954 07/08/10 03:46 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,010
C
Chtec Offline
Member
Offline
Member
C
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,010
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

Re: Ukrainian Catholic omophorion [Re: ajk] #349958 07/08/10 04:54 PM
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564
F
Fr Serge Keleher Offline
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564
Since the current Ruthenian Archieraticon does not mention either the small omophorion or the removing and resumption of the omoporion, ajk asks:

Quote
Why not keep it simple and embrace our own (Ruthenian Recension) liturgical patrimony?


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

Re: Ukrainian Catholic omophorion [Re: Fr Serge Keleher] #349960 07/08/10 05:04 PM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,984
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,984
Originally Posted by Fr Serge Keleher
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.

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.

Re: Ukrainian Catholic omophorion [Re: ajk] #349963 07/08/10 05:50 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
S
StuartK Offline
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
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.

Re: Ukrainian Catholic omophorion [Re: StuartK] #349970 07/08/10 06:59 PM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,984
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,984
Originally Posted by StuartK
...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:

Originally Posted by Fr Serge Keleher
Since the current Ruthenian Archieraticon does not mention either the small omophorion or the removing and resumption of the omoporion, ajk asks:

Quote
Why not keep it simple and embrace our own (Ruthenian Recension) liturgical patrimony?



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?

Re: Ukrainian Catholic omophorion [Re: ajk] #349973 07/08/10 07:50 PM
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 700
A
aramis Offline
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 700
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.)

Re: Ukrainian Catholic omophorion [Re: aramis] #349977 07/08/10 10:18 PM
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461
Diak Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461
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]

Re: Ukrainian Catholic omophorion [Re: aramis] #350125 07/13/10 04:59 PM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,984
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,984
Originally Posted by aramis
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.


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?

Re: Ukrainian Catholic omophorion [Re: ajk] #350145 07/13/10 10:56 PM
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 700
A
aramis Offline
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 700
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.

Re: Ukrainian Catholic omophorion [Re: aramis] #350244 07/16/10 03:32 PM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,984
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,984
Originally Posted by aramis
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.


I was unaware of the Latin edition.

Originally Posted by aramis
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.


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.

Re: Ukrainian Catholic omophorion [Re: ajk] #350247 07/16/10 05:17 PM
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564
F
Fr Serge Keleher Offline
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564
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

Re: Ukrainian Catholic omophorion [Re: Fr Serge Keleher] #350256 07/16/10 09:27 PM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,984
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,984
Originally Posted by Fr Serge Keleher
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.
Quite true. The question then remains -- and it is a question:

Originally Posted by ajk
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?

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:
Quote
In the first place, the existence of a special Ruthenian Recension has been ascertained older than that which is commonly called the vulgate, because it has not been corrected as this on the Greek Editions printed at the beginning of the seventeenth century. The Ruthenian Recension, then, inasmuch as it is concordant with older texts, deserves to be preferred.

Re: Ukrainian Catholic omophorion [Re: ajk] #350344 07/19/10 09:31 PM
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564
F
Fr Serge Keleher Offline
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564
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

Re: Ukrainian Catholic omophorion [Re: Fr Serge Keleher] #350347 07/19/10 10:35 PM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,984
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,984
Originally Posted by Fr Serge Keleher
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.

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

Quote
Is the small omophorion's absence from the Ruthenian Archieratikon (Rome, 1973/1975) a goof on the part of the redactors or intentional ...


Originally Posted by Fr Serge Keleher
There is no reason to think that the Greek-Catholics did not use the small omophorion in 1600.
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?

Re: Ukrainian Catholic omophorion [Re: Irish Melkite] #372040 11/18/11 11:14 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 315
Thymiato Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 315
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.

Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4

Moderated by  Alice, Father Deacon Ed, theophan 

The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2020 (Forum 1998-2020). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3