§ 93. a) Metropolitans

a) Metropolitans.

In the canonical sources, the chief bishop of a larger church district containing several bishops is called metropolitan.[1] In the beginning this chief bishop was called the first bishop,[2] and at the First Ecumenical Council he was named metropolitan,[3] which designation has remained in ecclesiastical use from that time. Canon 9 of the Council of Antioch speaks of the relation of a bishop to the metropolitan: “In every eparchy (καθ’ ἑκάστην ἐπαρχίαν)[4] the bishops must acknowledge the bishop who presides in the metropolis, and who bears the care for the whole eparchy, since to the metropolis all who have business come together from every side. And for this it is ordained that he must have precedence also in honor, and that the other bishops shall undertake nothing of greater importance without him, in accordance with the ancient canon of our fathers which is still in force—except only in what pertains to their own particular district and the villages belonging to it. For every bishop has authority over his own district (τῆς ἑαυτοῦ παροικίας), and must administer it with the regard due to everyone, and diligently care for all the places dependent on his city—that is, to ordain presbyters and deacons, and to carry through every matter with discretion; but beyond this he must undertake nothing without the bishop of the metropolis, just as the latter may do nothing without the consent of the rest.”[5] This canon clearly states the significance of the metropolitan in the constitution of the Church.

In the first centuries of the Church, metropolitans were all independent in the governance of their own local churches, and were appointed by the bishops of that same church.[6] It was only later, when the patriarchates had been established, that the metropolitans within the respective patriarchal jurisdiction became subordinate to the patriarchs.

The rights of the metropolitan, according to the canonical sources, are as follows: 1. the convening of regional councils and presiding over them, nor could the resolutions of such councils have lawful force without the metropolitan’s presence;[7] 2. oversight and direction of the election of a bishop;[8] 3. ordaining, together with the other bishops, a new bishop;[9] 4. the direction and oversight of all church business in all the dioceses under him;[10] 5. care for vacant episcopal sees;[11] 6. receiving complaints against bishops and ordering an inquiry against them;[12] 7. visitation of the subordinate dioceses;[13] 8. issuing letters of leave to bishops when they wished to be absent from their diocese for a time;[14] 9. seeing to it that in the subordinate dioceses all the necessary posts of service are filled, and himself issuing orders to that effect if the bishop concerned delays in doing so;[15] 10. that the subordinate bishops commemorate the metropolitan’s name at the divine services;[16] 11. that no more important church business be undertaken without the knowledge of the metropolitan;[17] 12. that no clergyman may go before the ruler of the land without the metropolitan’s written leave;[18] and finally 13. the metropolitan alone has the right to promulgate the church-state legal decrees within his territory.[19] But all these rights so enumerated the metropolitan may, according to the canonical sources, exercise only within the bounds of his own territory;[20] and even within that territory he may undertake anything touching the whole territory only with the consent of all the bishops subject to him,[17] and he is subject, like the other bishops, to the judgment of the regional council.[21]