I’m always confused by the rank of “Metropolitan” in the East. How big of a head honcho is the bishop? I’m always gratified by gestures of reconciliation, but is this a sign of reconciliation or just a disobedient bishop practicing false ecumenism?
(Lurkers: the Roman Church has determined that its side in the mutual excommunications of the schism were invalid, even though a rupture still exists. Therefore, Catholics are/would be permitted to receive communion at Orthodox liturgies wherever the Orthodox church permits it. Orthodox churches, however, still consider the Roman Church excommunicated, and therefore do not permit it. Hence my curiosity: does the metropolitan have the authority to permit it?)
It is my understanding that the excommunications were leveled at the respective patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople, and didn’t extend to the laity or even the bishops in the respective Churches.
As far as I know (and someone correct me if I am wrong), neither Church has ever formally excommunicated the other.
That said, I’m with kosta in wanting to see the bishop’s explanation. At first blush I’d have to agree that it’s not wise to jumpstart any reunion with actions like this. But God will judge.
From Wikipedia:
In hierarchical Christian churches, the rank of metropolitan bishop, or simply metropolitan, pertains to the diocesan bishop or archbishop (then more precisely called metropolitan archbishop) of a metropolis; that is, the chief city of a historical Roman province, ecclesiastical province, or regional capital. His jurisdiction is called a metropolia or a metropolis.
Before the establishment of patriarchs (beginning in 325 AD), metropolitan was the highest episcopal rank in the Christian church. They presided over synods of bishops, and were granted special privileges by canon law and sacred tradition.
In the Roman Catholic Church, a metropolitan has supervisory authority over the bishops in the dioceses that make up his ecclesiastical province, who are therefore called his suffragan bishops.
It is my understanding that the title “Metropolitan” in the Eastern churches is similar to what we in the west would call an “Archbishop.”
Although in the Orthodox world, they do not have anyone higher up on the organizational flowchart (i.e. The Pope), so they probably assign more meaning and responsibility to the term Metropolitan.
In the Eastern Catholic churches, Metropolitans are the top bishops of their rites and many, like the Chaldean patriarch Emmanuel Delly in Iraq, are also Cardinals.
I realize I am starting this thread late so you may have already recieved the answer, but i will give you one anyway.
A metropolitan is a bishop. In different Orthodox Churchs (i.e. Slavic), the metropolitan is usually an archbishop. For instance, the Orthodox Church in Japan is under the Patriarchate of Moscow. It is autonomous in its administration, but not independent (autocephalous, or "self-headed"). The archbishop of Japan is Metropolitan Daniel (who is Japanese).
I was visiting Tokyo's Orthodox Cathedral during my stay there in 2003-2005, and remember one of the priests introducing me to Bishop Daniel. The priest (who was Russian) addressed him simply as "Vladyka," a Slavonic term for a bishop.
You will also notice the the Church of Greece, which is separate from the Patriarchate of Constantinople, is headed by a Metropolitan as an autocephalous, stand-alone Church and that the metropolitan of Greece fulfills all the functions of a Patriarch. the same is true of the Orthodox Church of America, although it is recognized as "autocephalous" only by the Church of Russia.
Now, to a Catholic this must be horribly confusing... :)