www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Small Omophorion and other questions

Christ is born! Glorify Him!
With the eve of the feast of the Cicumcision of our Lord and St. Basil; and St. Nina for everyone with a telescope!

I was wondering if anyone could direct me to a book which would explain the meaning of the small omophorion and it's removal and replacement during services.

Also, can anyone tell me if the following observation is true: Hierarchs, when vested in a mandyas (with epitrachelion and cuffs) wear a klobuk/kokulion if vested in a small omophorion, and a mitre if they are vested in the large/normal omophorion (This is quite specific to Russian usage I pressume).

Any assistance would be appreciated.

In Christ,
sinner

Pimen,

I have never seen the small omophorion used in the Byzantine Catholic Church. The Melkites do use it, however. I have never seen any explanation for the switching between large and small omophorions in any of the recensions that practice this custom. Among the Melkites it seems (from pictures of their liturgies) that the principal celebrating bishop wears the mitre and large omophorion and assisting bishops wear the klobuk and small omophorion throughout.

In Christ,
Lance, deacon candidate

Never noticed this distinction (as a Greek) Is there a reason for worrying about it?

Blessings!

Дорогой брат в Христе, Пимен!

Добро пожаловать! Funny, I've never noticed the small omophor(ion) either — I'll keep my eye out for it.

http://oldworldrus.com

Z prazynkom!(I have not figured out how to type in Cyrillic fonts yet on this machine)

In the Slavic Eastern Catholic Churches, I know of only two hierarchs that use the small omophorion during the Divine Liturgy, namely His Grace Vasili, Exarch of Kiev and Vyshorod; His Grace Mykhail, Bishop of Zboriv etc. I am sure that other Uniate Hierarchs own one, but do not use them.

The protodeacon of His Grace Julian, Secretary of the Synod of the UGCC was willing to revive this practice with his bishop, but he wanted to know why it was done in the first place.

Anyway, this is not a very urgent or important matter, and is probably more of a distraction from Faith than anything else. However, if any more knowledge in this matter comes out, it would be helpful.

All I know is that the omophor represents the lost sheep which Chirst finds (us). It seems odd that there would be a smaller lost sheep, but there must be some sort of symbolism there.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

As a subdeacon, I frequently assist my hierarchs in the robing and changes that occur during hierarchal services. The Hierodeacon who taught me said that it is primarily done to assist the bishop in manuevering during the Divine Liturgy. The Small Omophorion is not as bulky as the great omophorion and enables the Bishop to handle the Holy Gifts without spilling the most precious body and blood. Sorry that its not mystical but practical.

FYI: The Russians are more apt to have the full service of vesting in the front of the Church, whereas the Greek and Antiochians tend to vest privately out of view from the Congregation. The hymns that are sung during the vesting and the full hierarchal service are wonders to behold and full of symbolism. In many ways it is the only full Byzantine worship that one can view that fully makes you feel as if you were in the Great Church in Constantinople in the days when Bishops served every Sunday and the norm was the Hierarchal Divine Liturgy.

Your brother in Christ,
Thomas

Personally, I have always found this topic to be very curious. As is well known, our Ruthenian bishops have always made use solely of the large omophorion and do not take it on and off during the Divine Liturgy.

There is more: Since somewhere in the late 1970s, Ruthenian and Ukrainian bishops have often used the "pieced-together" large omophorion, which is obviously much easier to wear and causes less occasion for difficulty than the traditional "wrap-around" omophor. I've been told that most Orthodox bishops use the large omophorion so infrequently because of the feeling of being "bound-up" that it give the one wearing it. The last Ruthenian prelate that I recall making use of the traditional large omophor was the late Vladyka Metropolitan Stephen Kocisko and even he began using the "pieced" version in later years.

In my opinion, I have always found the substitution of the small for the large omophor to be disappointing, due to the great symbolism of the vestment, as already mentioned here, namely that of the shepherd who seeks out the lost sheep. In fact, these Gospel-words are used when the bishop is vested in the omophor. Its importance is retained in the Latin Rite through the use of the "pallium" which is however, limited to use by the Pope and all Metropolitan-Archbishops of the Roman Church. It also takes on here, the added interpretation of communion with the successor of Peter and is bestowed to those new in the above category of prelates each year on the Feast of SS. Peter & Paul, Prime Apostles. Being made of lamb's wool, it further carries the imagery of shepherd. Did anyone notice that at the beginning of the Holy Year of the Great Jubilee, John Paul II wore a restored type of pallium, which looked closer to our large omophor rather than the minimalized common pallium.

While all Eastern bishops are normally depicted in iconography wearing the omophorion (which, incidentally is rendered in both the contemporary, wrap-around style, with the front end hanging to the side and the (probably) original way, with the front end hanging straight down. Even when our bishops make use of the one-piece traditionally wrapped omophor, they have kept its symbolism more intact by making sure it hangs properly front and center. I believe this is the way it was intended to be worn. Earlier Latin bishop-saints are frequently depicted with an omophorion over the chasuble.

Bishops John Martin and Orestes Chornock of the Carpatho-Russian Greek Catholic Diocese followed the same practice as their united counterparts (large wrapped style of omophor, no small and no taking on and off) and used the Ruthenian recension exclusively. Lately I believe, in that jurisdiction, there has been a confusing mix of Ruthenian and Greek practices foreign to their people's experience. Before one says that these former bishops were not properly Orthodox in style, I would like to affirm the integrity of the Ruthenian recension, even if it differs somewhat from other Orthodox usage, which have gone through several reforms that did not effect us as I will point out below.

As far as removing the omophor at certain times in the liturgy, I see no reason for this, other than what has been mentioned as practical and less cumbersome. Other than that, I would rather see it worn the entire time or else the symbolism can be destroyed. If you notice some Orthodox bishops who remove this vestment for periods of time, they appear to me to look odd and incomplete, more like an acolyte wearing a sticharion but embellished with episcopal paraphernalia (panagia, epigonation, etc). Our Ruthenian recension bishops do not put the omophor on and off.

I have no real objection to the modern "pieced" omophor, because of its ease while retaining a richer symbolism. It also has a more stylistic and pleasing appearance than some bulky large omophorions. I have felt that the current style used in Orthodox jurisdictions, where the omophor hangs to one side just doesn't look right and is too similar to the deacon's orarion in this view, even if ever so slightly.

My theory for the preservation of the large omophorion and lack of presence of the small in the churches of the Ruthenian recension is the same as applies to many more ancient liturgical peculiarities and texts in our liturgy: Being more isolated from other Eastern Christian churches in Subcarpathian Rus' and Galicia, and also, having entered into communion with Rome probably before the current practice of two omophors and taking them on and off came into being, our typikons were not effected by these reforms. This is certainly true for changes in liturgical texts and rubrics, especially those of the Nikonian reforms which altered the Russian liturgy and were based on Greek usage at the time of their promulgation. This is only a theory, but one which is in keeping with other changes that did not alter the Ruthenian recension. It is also the premise that gives us certain commonalities with Old Believer usages.

Regarding the vesting of the hierarch in the church, while this is truly a beautiful ceremony, I think that it also adds unnecessary pomp to our already ceremonious liturgy. It hearkens more to the entrance of a monarch than a shepherd and also adds considerable time to a very long service. There's nothing wrong with it but I believe that we need to have some concern for the reasoning of the twenty-first century mind. I'm sure some of you will disagree, but there is a reason that the majority of bishops, even some within the Russian recension, chose to eliminate it. For me, it falls into the category of just a bit "too much" for ordinary usage. Perhaps it would be appropriate for some very solemn occasions.

Historically, the last Ruthenian hierarch in the US at least, to make frequent use of the vesting ceremony in the church was Nicholas T. Elko, well known for his love of pomp and splendor, as was his Roman counter-part, Fulton J. Sheen. I believe that Vladyka Kocisko vested in the church toward the beginning of his episcopacy and Bishop Emil Mihalik of Parma was reported to have done so on several occasions, but not as a norm. After these, it has more or less been relegated to obscurity in our church.

As for the use of the mantia, mentioned somewhere here, the proper and Ruthenian practice is for the bishop to wear it with at least epitrachial and usually large omophorion. In our usage, the mitre and crosier are used instead of the klobuk and waking stick. Occasionally, for portraits and non-liturgical occasions (as if one would ever use the mantia non-liturgically) I have seen a mantia only, worn over an under-cassock. Panagia of course are always worn with a mantia.

A very interesting topic for those of us who have an interest liturgical practices. Why worry about it? Because some of us acknowledge the importance of liturgy for expressing through word, action, symbolism and imagery, the faith that we hold in our hearts and minds. That is the purpose of liturgy and it is a medium that is alive and speaks to believers in different ways throughout every age. I'm glad we are discussing this.

Joe

Wow! So much information! Thanks Thomas and Joe!

Sorry Joe, but I'll have to disagree with you about the appearance of the "pre-feabricated" omophor. I think it looks pretty hideous and it always starts sliding off of the bishops because they don't have the buttons sewn on at the back to keep it on properly. However, it is true that during Hierarchical vesting it can be difficult to assembly nicely (I myself have messed up once).

Regarding your point about the vesting being "unnecessarily pomp": I must disagree. Firstly, it is part of our tradition and today our Greek Catholic bishops in North America really lack the presence of dignity (they never seem to know what they are doing during services that aren't the regular Divin Liturgy). Vesting them in the middle of the church lets us show our respect for them.

At St. Elias Parish in Brampton, we never let the bishop get away without vesting in the middle of the church. And sometimes, if the bishop doesn't notice, we vest him in proper vestments with the properly sewn omophor.

If we don't preserve our traditions, then who will?

Dear Daniil,

Yes, I agree with you that the formal vesting in the middle of the Church is our tradition and, besides that, really does make the faithful participate in a very dynamic way in the very beginning of the Liturgy by way of preparation.

The "pomp" that is associated with it is what marks it as truly beautiful and we should fight the temptation to modernize.

The Church of St Elias with Fr. Roman Galadza and Fr. Kennedy truly sets a bright example in this regard for all other Ukrainian (Orthodox) Catholic parishes.

Your parish is "worth the drive to Brampton!"

Alex

Its' too bad that most people outside the Toronto area are not able to visit it and that they won't get your joke!

They have a website for anyone interested, but it's still under construction: www.saintelias.com [saintelias.com]
Sorry about that, IT"S UP!!!
Check it out!!!

It is too bad that some bishops are perceived as being awkward and unfamiliar with the ritual of the hierarchical liturgy. In former times, our bishops never had any problems with the service and they always seemed to go off without a glitch. This indicates some problems in the style of individual hierarchs and their devotion to the liturgy. It can also come from the changes to our recension of the pontifical liturgy in recent years, that present bishops may be uncomfortable with. I do think that where changes have occurred, they may not have been implemented correctly, thus causing awkward gaps in the singing and movements of the service, at least in Subcarpathian churches. Has anyone noticed this?

I agree that the episcopal vesting can be an enhancing part of the experience of the presence of the bishop in the assembly. It can however be tedious at times and as you mention, takes a lot of attention to detail. Not every church has the "staff" to pull it off gracefully. When properly trained deacons and subdeacons are around, then it can be done with little problem.

Does anyone know when and why the Ruthenian recension bishops went to the use of the "pieced" large omophorion?

Also, as I began to talk about above, the Pontifical Divine Liturgy as celebrated prior to around the 1990s was somewhat different than the current rite being used, following the Archieratikon published in Ukrainian and Slavonic in Rome in the 80s. This version bears closer resemblance to what is done in both Russian and Greek usages. Our old pontifical is said to be derived from the practices in L'viv. Some of them are beautiful and frankly, I miss them. Can anyone elaborate on the differences in the old and new pontificals and the reasons for them? I have to wonder if some of the former rites were latinizations but also, if some of them were older customs, untouched by later Orthodox reform. I have seen very little written about the Ruthenian hierarchical liturgy and the reasons for peculiarities. It would be interesting to study it. Joe

Well, the one sewn together omophor is obviously post Vatican II, but I think it is even more recent. It seems that it came into existence around the time that all the Greek Catholic bishops got those matching vestments (the gold sakos and white omophors with the really cheap red and gold crosses). This was around 1988, in time for the Millenium. I am sure that the "one-piece monstrosity" may have been developed before that time, but it only became widespread after 1988.

I don't know anything about Ruthenian Hierarchical Divine liturgies, but I guess that they would probably use the same Archieratikon as the one published in Rome (whose predecesor was the one published in at the Univ Lavra by Cardinal Michael Lyvytsky). There are some really significant differences between Galician usage and Russian/Kievan.

I must confess that the first time I saw a bishop vesting in the church, my immediate, terribly holy thought was, "One Bishop. Some assembly required."

Cheers,

Sharon

Sharon Mech, SFO
Cantor & sinner
sharon@cmhc.com

Hahaha! That's a good one.