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.
True, but then the respective bishops sided with one or the other and dropped the Latin bishops from diptychs and eventually led to two communion camps, a de facto excommunication of the other.
It is true that in 1964 the Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarch annulled the excommunications of 1054 (the Latin one was invalid because Cardinal Humbert had no authority to represent a pope who was deceased), and committed them to oblivion. Thus we are not in mutual heresy, but in disagreement (schism).
The division is an "in-house matter," a family dispute. This is qualitatively different from the heresy of the Protestants who are no longer in the Church (i.e. have no apostolic authority).
The problem with this Romanian Metropolitan is that the Holy Communion is an expression of communion (unity) in faith, and not a means of achieving it.