Archbishop/Metropolitan?

[JamesRottnek]

I am sorry if this is the wrong place, or if it has been asked before (I used the search feature but didn’t find anything), but I have two questions.

Firstly, what exactly is the difference, first of all, in an Archbishop and a Metropolitan? From what I understand, an Archbishop is generally also a Metropolitan, is this accurate?

Second, what is the difference in an Archbishop and a Metropolitan from a Bishop?

 

[bpbasilphx]

I cannot speak for the Latin Church, but in Orthodoxy, the terms differ slightly.

Among the Greeks, Metropolitan is a title of honor; Archbishop is a title of jurisdiction or primacy.

It’s the reverse among the Slavs: Archbishop is a title of honor; Metropolitan is one of jurisdiction.

 

[CUAGRAD08]

In the Latin Church the terms are similar but very different. The terms often refers to the same person however. An archbishop is an overseer of a group. The term implies that the bishop has authority over a group. This group could be an the apostolic nuncio (the Holy Fathers ambassador to a country) or the head of a Curial office (depending on the rank of the office it might be traditionally headed by a cardinal too)(as an example: the Popes personal liturgical directory is an Archbishop). It might also be it most common usage as the head of an archdiocese.

As an archbishop in an Archdiocese, the ordinary is responsible for the oversight of his diocese but also the oversight of all suffragen diocese.  They have certain canonical rights such as being able to temporarily appoint a head of a suffragen diocese if it becomes unexpectedly vacant that will serve until such time as the Holy Father appoints a new ordinary or vicar.  This concept is what is meant by Metropolitan.  They are the metropolitan, which gives them these rights.  (But they are still an archbishop in every sense of the word.)

Finally, the bishop and an archbishop are only differentiated by the authority of their position.  A bishop is a bishop and has full authority of the Church.  An archbishop is a bishop that exercises his authority over other bishops.  They can all perform the same sacramental functions, just ther governance is slightly different.

 

[JamesRottnek]

First, thanks for the quick responses.

Second, so in the Latin rite, really the only difference in an Archbishop (who heads an Archdiocese) is that he can appoint someone to run a Diocese temporarily?

 

[sancte_joseph]

First, thanks for the quick responses.

Second, so in the Latin rite, really the only difference in an Archbishop (who heads an Archdiocese) is that he can appoint someone to run a Diocese temporarily?

Well technically it just comes with the position… being an archbishop means having a large group (archdiocese) so sometimes it is necessary to have other bishops (auxiliary) under you sometimes having them do some of the many jobs the Bishop of a diocese does…

 

[CUAGRAD08]

First, thanks for the quick responses.

Second, so in the Latin rite, really the only difference in an Archbishop (who heads an Archdiocese) is that he can appoint someone to run a Diocese temporarily?

Canon 436 of the Code of Canon Law lists the functions of a metropolitan. Three are set out by the law itself.

First: to make sure that “ecclesiastical discipline” are maintained in the suffragan diocese, and report abuses to the Roman Pontiff.
Second: to conduct visitation when asked by the Holy See (usually upon report of an abuse).
Third: to designate a diocesan administrator when the see is vacant and the collage of consulters has not elected in the prescribed time.

The forth function is kind of the catch all and says that when the Holy See determines it fit other function s may be assigned.

The final section of the Canon states that the Metropolitan has “no other power of Governance in the suffragan diocese.” He can perform sacred functions in the diocese but if it occurs in the cathedral he must inform the bishop of that diocese.

That is the entire job description of a Metropolitan.

 

[PacoG]

An archbishop heads an archdiocese, which is usually the oldest or most-populous diocese in a province.

Some archbishops are also metropolitans. What that means is that they also head a province, which is a grouping of dioceses. For example, Cardinal DiNardo of Houston is both the Archbishop of Galveston-Houston and the Metropolitan of the Galveston-Houston Province, which includes the dioceses in eastern Texas.

Not all archbishops are metropolitans. Some hold titular titles, which means that their archdiocese is extinct or suppressed. For example, recently the secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments was ordained to be titular archbishop of Oregon City, Oregon. That archdiocese was suppressed and no longer exists. Most high-ranking curial officials and papal nuncios hold titular archbishop titles as a sign of hierarchical authority because they deal with bishops.

There are also some archbishops who lead archdioceses who aren’t metropolitans. Furthermore, there are a few Canadian archdioceses that are suffragan to another archdiocese or are directly subject to Rome.

Some archbishops are neither metropolitans nor hold archdiocese. There is a tradition that has fallen into disuse of giving distinguished prelates the title of “Archbishop (personal title).” But it appears that custom is no longer followed. So it was possible for a bishop of a regular diocese to have the title of archbishop even though he was not in possession of an archdiocese.

Generally in the Western Rite, the general rule is that all metropolitans are archbishops but not all archbishops are metropolitans. Even then, there is an exception to the general: the pope holds the titles of Bishop (not Archbishop) of the Diocese (not Archdiocese) of Rome and Metropolitan of the Roman Province.

 

[JamesRottnek]

Thanks guys you’ve been a big help.