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

According to the Serbian prayerbook published by the New Gracanica Metropolia (Grayslake, Illinois)in 1993 explains that the large omophor is worn by the bishop from the begining of the Liturgy to the begining of the Gospel. Then the bishop changes into the smaller omophor.

Perhaps for reasons of convenience this is not followed regularly by many hierarchs.

With best wishes to all!
Stefan

Surprise! Here we go: I'm determined to get to the roots of our "received" Ruthenian hierarchical liturgy:

To Daniil: Thank you so much for the information. I would very much like to see a manuscript of the archieratikon you mention, published at the Univ Lavra by Cardinal Michael Lyvytsky. If there are significant differences between Galician usage and Russian/Kievan contained in this work, then they may be exactly what I am speaking of in relation to our old pontifical and the one produced in Rome somewhere around the 1980s. To me, the new Roman edition simply copies current Orthodox usage without attention to authentic and ancient Ruthenian editions. This would be no surprise since liturgical reform has followed this procedure before (i.e.: the Nikonian reforms). It could be that the translators in Rome simply followed suit. If the Univ manuscript is available anywhere, I assume in Church Slavonic, I could study it and a survey of the Ruthenian pontifical vis a vis other recensions would be a great doctoral thesis. If you have any idea of how to gain access to this document, I would be thrilled.

I am in agreement with you that the matching gold/white Ukrainian vestments look very cheap and are definitely over played. One can get really sick of seeing these over and over again.

Thanks for any help on the Univ manuscript. Were there copies of it circulating among our eparchies prior to the last five decades or so? I have never come across it in my studies, but then again, not much has been produced about our hierarchical services. Our former rite seems to have been passed down orally. Your knowledge of these items is appreciated. Joe

By way of an addendum: Our former usage contained some unique, and possibly purer rubrics. As would make sense, the hierarchical liturgy developed and was elaborated over the centuries from simpler entrance rites and other practices on one hand, to the very ornate Russian usage still in place in those churches. I don't know how your bishop in Canada celebrates. Do you have a recollection of the pontifical before 1980 or so? I know that before this time, both Ruthenian and Ukrainian churches had a common rite, as witnessed by various booklets published in their entirety by both jurisdictions. However, these were not official manuscripts but only pew booklets. A Russian version of their hierarchical service is available from ROCOR but this contains a huge cast of characters and complicated script. Have you seen it? Maybe with a well trained staff as at your parish, it could be done. But, none-the-less, I think that our Ruthenian prescriptions witness to a more ancient practice. God bless. JL

To Cantorka Sharon Mech: I mentioned above, differences between former and current Ruthenian pontificals? From your experience in the ministry of Cantor, do you remember how it used to be, singing "Many years" after each of the bishop's chanted blessings ("O Lord, O Lord, . . . ")? Now the blessings are done in silence and no singing except (maybe) one at the end. This is very awkward in my estimation. It seems like something is being left out and no one knows what they are doing. It is similar at the time of the Little Entrance. I have seen it done with the bishop singing one line then saying the blessing prayer and then, business as usual. Previously, the bishop blessed with the beautiful prayer (O Christ, the true light . . . ") , the people sang "Many years" and then the altar was incensed with the wonderful verse/response of "Save us, O Son of God . . ." Congregations loved to sing this part especially. What went wrong. As a cantor, what are your observations? Thanks for your input. Joe

Appendix: The Ruthenian pontifical contains ( in some places, contained) a very beautiful blessing at the time of the Little Entrance. For the sake of preservation, it is as follows:

"O Christ, the true light, who enlightens and sanctifies everyone who comes into the world (+) mark us with the light of your countenance, that, walking in it, we may see the light of your glory, which is beyond understanding. (+) Direct our steps in the observance of your commandments. (+) Through the prayers of your most pure Mother, O Christ, our God, save us." (+)

Hmm...what you Ruthenians are saying is very interesting. I have never actually witnessed a full Pontifical Liturgy according to pure Ruthenian usage, or for that matter, any Ruthenian usage. From what you are saying, I take it that Galician and Ruthenian usage is quite different.

Joe: Galician usage is still quite different from Russian/Kievan. This Archieratikon of Mikhail Levytsky can be found in the collections of some few people that collect or keep such books (they are all copies here in North America). I have never actually seen one before.

If the Archieratikon you talk about (you say it is published in Rome, 1980-ish) is the same one that the Ukrainian Greek Catholics use, then it would be quite different from Russian usage.

If I can find this Univ Archieratikon, I will let you know.

Maybe before "we" expend all this effort on rubrics, we should correct the horrible grammar that mars our English liturgical books. The above line should read

"O Christ, the true light, who enlighten and sanctify everyone..."

This is no reflection on Joe, this is what the books actually say.

[ 01-29-2002: Message edited by: RichC ]

Joe,

I've attended & sung at liturgies where things have been done all the ways you mention. I agree that the "old, full" way is indeed the loveliest and most graceful. Personally, I think the issue causing the most awkwardness is that there does not yet seem to be any consistency. With each event, it seems to be a matter of, well, how does THIS bishop want it done THIS time.

I dunno if this is related to the fact that we have no Metropolitan right now.

Best,

Sharon

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

A little bit of an aside, I beg your indulgence...

RichC, is the reason why "enlighten" is used instead of "enlightens" because "O Christ" is in the second person, and thus is a "you"? Hence, "O You who enlightens" would make no sense?

Reason I ask is because, though I was taught grammar by nuns, and learned it flawlessly, for whatever reason, I always assumed it should read the way it was quoted, and not the way you corrected it.

Rats! I was wrong again! :p

:rolleyes:

SLAVA ISUSU CHRISTU!
SLAVA NA VIKI BOHU!

Rich C wrote: "...Maybe before "we" expend all this effort on rubrics, we should correct the horrible grammar that mars our English liturgical books...'

I'd settle for a standardized translation that ALL of Eparchs would use. This past Sunday was a good example. We sang the tropars for Prodigal Son and for the relics of St. John Chrysostom. Well, these tropars are not in the pew books but are in the Byzantine Daily Prayerbook but are different than the handouts printed in Virginia.

I'd give other examples but I'm sure you them as well as I....

just my couple of drobny....

so many eggs, so little time...

mark

Mark dear,

Those eggs.... Are you painting them, or throwing them???


Just curious...

Sharon


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

You've got it! The subject of the sentence is "you." We have a lot of liturgical language that is constructed this way ("O, [you], who ..."), but in our current books, it's rarely, if ever, got the correct verb. It sure sounds strange, but I think that's because in contemporary US English this is a grammatical construct that's rarely used.

It's like our festal antiphons at Liturgy, e.g., "O Son of God, who was transfigured on the mount, save us who sing to you, alleluia!" It should be "who were transfigured" for the same reason. Hopefully the "new Liturgy" (when, Lord, when?) will correct these goofs.

[ 01-29-2002: Message edited by: RichC ]

GLORY TO JESUS CHRIST!
GLORY TO HIM FOREVER!

Hi Sharon!

Congrats on little Wulf Elias! Many years!

I've started with the pysanky already. I have 1 dozen finished and also 2 goose finished. I have another dozen about half-way done. I'm getting orders from small businesses who see my webpage.

I'm also going to London in the middle of the Great Fast!

so many eggs, so little time.....

mark

Dear Daniil & Sharon:

Thank you both for the responses.

Daniil: When I used the term "Ruthenian" usage, I did mean that which is common to both Ukrainians and Carpatho-Rusyns, as part of the one "Ruthenian Recension" that we both use. As we know, before the development of a strong Ukrainian national consciousness, both groups were referred to as Ruthenians, especially by the Roman See which did this up until around middle of the last century.

The "Ordo Celebraciones" or "Divine Services According to the Ruthenian Recension" was published for both Galicians and Subcarpathians, and the new edition was edited by Fr. Serge Kelleher, a priest of the Ukrainian Eparchy of Toronto now serving in Europe.

Liturgically, we both share the same recension, the only major difference being the chant. Minor differences may exist but these are mostly ones that are colloquial. It is fair to say that the one thing which may unite us the most is our liturgical recension. As I've said, there are many very positive aspects to the Ruthenian Recension, one of the most valuable being the fact that many particularities were left untouched by later Orthodox reforms and are thus more ancient and purer than subsequent innovations.

That being said, a Pontifical Liturgy according to the Ruthenian usage would be that common to both Galician and Carpathian tradition. The matter I am getting at is that we had a standard pontifical that was, as Sharon mentions, very graceful and beautiful, up until the new Ukrainian version published in Rome in the 80s. My search is for whether the new edition made legitimate corrections to our former rubrics ( the former I assume were based on the Univ edition of Michael Levytsky) or were done to merely haphazardly imitate current Orthodox usage which could well ignore some of our more ancient practices in favor of reformed Greek or Russian texts. Your mention of the difference between Russian/Kyivan and Galician versions is very true and, if your bishops are now using the new edition, this gives witness to the fact that in the 80s edition, some but not all current Orthodox customs were adopted.

There are items in the 80s archieratikon that simply do not fit our style and some are the same as Russian and Greek pontifical practices, but not all. There is also the extenuating factor that our bishops now may all use different parts and pieces, as Sharon testifies to. I think that the problem now is that certain hierarchs prefer the older (and what I believe to be purer) Ruthenian (Galician & Carpathian) traditional hierarchical liturgy while others may have adopted to the texts of the new Roman edition, even if they are not authentically ours.

Prior to all of this so-called reform of the pontifical, both Ukrainian and Subcarpathian churches occasionally published pontifical booklets and they were then all the same. My desire is to compare these (our traditional usage) with manuscripts such as that of Levytsky, along with the Roman 80s edition, to see exactly where we should be in terms of our authentic Ruthenian Recension of the hierarchical liturgy. Rome is known for valuable liturgical books, but occasionally there are discrepancies in their editions that favor this or that outside source, when printing for the Ruthenian usage.

I too have a large collection of old Church Slavonic liturgical books according to our recension and am quite proud of it. It includes some rare books that many others do not have. They are usually quite thick and heavy. Interesting, in all of my collecting over the past 20+ years, I have never come across the Univ edition of the archieratikon.

Daniil, if indeed you can come across a way for me to get a copy of the Univ Levytsky edition, I would be willing to purchase, pay for copying or whatever it may take to be able to study it.

Thank you both, Daniil and Sharon for your worthwhile contributions to this little studied part of our liturgical tradition and I invite you to study this with me if you care to. I think it is worth the time and effort to get to the heart of our hierarchical service. I think that we will be pleasantly surprised by some of the rites that are authentically ours and a part of the heritage received from the ancient church.

Joe

Dear Joe,

The 1980s edition of the Archieratikon published by the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church in Ukrainian (by Metropolitan Steven [Sulyk]) is actually only a translation of the 1970s Archieratikon published by Patriarch Joseph in Rome in Old Slavonic. Therefore, there has been no addition of Russian or Greek usage into this (relatively) new edition. In fact, it is good that they did not change anything because they would have chooped it up and we would have had a skeleton, or sick and dying, at best, Archieratikon.

I am not suprised that you do not have the Levytsky Archieratikon; I don't think anyone has it in a personal collection. Speaking of Fr. Serge, he may have it, and if not, will know which libraries in North America will have it. I will ask him.

Also, do you have the book on the Lviv Stauropegial Brotherhood (in Russian -- published in the early 1900s in Lviv by the Brotherhood itself)?

Daniil

Dear Joe,

Fr. Serge believes that there are some places where the Univ book can be found:

"the Archieraticon is almost certainly the same as the one more usually attributed to Bachinsky. Funny about that book, somehow or other they used to run off individual copies every time a bishop was consecrated; I've often wondered just what the printing process was. It was originally
published in L'viv in 1886. Bishop Michael Rusnak owns a copy and might be willing to let you consult it. Failing that, you might ask Father Conrad [Dachuk, in Newmarket, ON]-- I believe he made a complete photocopy. It's a pretty horrible book, as you might expect. I think that I have a photocopy of the Archieraticon done in
Suprasl' in 1716...try checking with Ed Kasinec at the Slavonic division of the New York Public Library. If anybody would know, he would."

There you go. I hope that is helpful.

Daniil

Dear Daniil:

Thank you so much for the information. This study is certainly getting more interesting as we go along.

The 1886 version would be one that I'm also interested in studying along with the rest. This may indeed be the one that follows what we remember as our "traditional usage" during the last century.

When time permits, I will check at the New York Public Library (5th. Ave & 42nd St.) to see which manuscripts they may have in their collection. That's a good idea.

If you ever have the chance to view or copy Bishop Rusnak's or Fr. Dachuk's book, I'd be very interested and would be glad to send you the cost for copying and mailing plus a humble stipend for yourself.

Do you suppose that Father Serge identifies the book as "horrible" because of its condition or because of the particular rubrics it uses? That's a fascinating comment. Since we do have some indigenous rubrics in our "received" pontifical, I think that I can get to the bottom of whether they are authentic or imitations of Latin Rite pontifical customs. My guess is that there is probably a little of both.

By the way Daniil, do you know from where I can order either Patriarch Josyp's or Metropolitan Sulyk's archieratikons? The one in Ukrainian would be most helpful today. I do not see them listed by Basilian Press. I had thought that they were available only from Rome, but maybe there are sources in North America to order from.

I don't think that I have the book on the L'viv Stauropigial Brotherhood, but will check my library. I may have it and not realize it.

We are starting to get to the heart of things. I thank you for your research and hard work.

With prayers and blessing.

Priest Joe