§ 1. Metropolitans and Archbishops are ordinarily taken in law for the same persons: Cause 9, question 3; at the end of the section De Monachis; in the section Non autem, On the Non-Alienation of Ecclesiastical Property, in the Authentics; thus Rebuffus on section 1 of the Institutes, and Gregory of Toulouse. They were placed in those cities which were μητροπόλεις, “mother-cities,” and principal cities, in which the governors of the provinces resided.
Heinrich Kalteisen, however, held the contrary in his oration On the Punishment of Public Crimes at the Council of Basel, and did so from Rabanus, book 1 On the Institution of Clerics, chapter 5:
The order of Bishops is fourfold, that is, divided into Patriarchs, Archbishops, Metropolitans, and Bishops. “Patriarch” is interpreted in the Greek language as “supreme of the Fathers”; he holds the first, that is, Apostolic place, and because he performs the highest honor, he is designated by such a name, as at Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria. “Archbishop” is so called by a Greek term because he is the supreme Bishop; for he holds the Apostolic place and presides over Metropolitans as well as the other Bishops. Metropolitans, however, are named from the measure of cities, for one presides over the several provinces; the other priests are subject to their authority and teaching, and without them it is lawful for the other Bishops to do nothing, for the care of the whole province has been committed to them. All the orders designated above are named Bishops by one and the same term; but certain men use a particular name because of the distinction of the powers which they have received individually.
“Patriarch” means father of princes, for ἄρχων means “Prince”; “Archbishop” means Prince of Bishops, just as “Metropolitan” derives from the measure of cities.
He places Archbishops before Metropolitans, as though there were certain Metropolitans who are not named Archbishops. They are so named, I say, for I could scarcely believe that anyone is called a Metropolitan to whom the office of Archbishop does not belong, except that in the cited place, as also in Distinction 21, Cleros, the Archbishop is said to preside even over Metropolitans. In Germany, however, another rationale for the distinction appears. For Metropolitans are named from the principal city of one province, while Archbishops have under themselves Bishops of different provinces. For example, the Archbishop of Mainz has the Bishops of Speyer, Chur, Halberstadt, Worms, Strasbourg, Paderborn, Würzburg, Verden, Constance, Eichstätt, Hildesheim, and Augsburg. In the ancient manner Mainz was not rightly called the Metropolis in relation to these provinces, since they are different provinces and different Metropolises.
Budé regarded the origin and ancient times when he names as Metropolises those cities from which colonies were led out. This has no relevance to our Archbishoprics and Metropolitans, nor indeed even to the times of the Empire. For many colonies surpassed their Metropolises. Tyre was an ἀποικία, “colony,” of Sidon, and Carthage of Tyre; yet the Archbishop of Carthage was by no means subject to the Tyrian, but the latter acknowledged the Patriarch of Antioch. Metropolises, therefore, are those which govern other Churches not by origin, but by maternal care, solicitude, authority, and power.
§ 2. An Archbishop was formerly elected by all the Bishops of his jurisdiction. Thus Pope Anicetus:
But as the number of Bishops increases, more also ought to be added unless necessity intervenes; that is, if an Archbishop has died and another Archbishop to be ordained has been elected, all the Bishops of the same province shall assemble at the Metropolitan See so that he may be ordained by them all. For the man who ought to preside over all must be elected and ordained by all of them. The remaining Bishops of the province, however, if it should be necessary and the others consent, may at the Archbishop’s command be consecrated by three Bishops; but it is better if he himself, together with all, elects the man who is worthy and all alike consecrate him as Pontiff.
And although this has been conceded under the pressure of necessity, nevertheless what was said and commanded concerning the consecration of an Archbishop—namely, that all the suffragans ordain him—may in no way be changed, because the man who presides over them must be appointed by all the Bishops over whom he presides. If anything else has been presumed, it is without doubt devoid of force, because his ordination performed otherwise will be invalid. The Archbishop himself, moreover, shall conduct nothing concerning their cases or other common matters, according to the statutes of the Apostles, without the counsel of them all; nor shall they act without his counsel except insofar as pertains to their own parishes, because the Most High rejoices in such concord and is glorified in his members.
This was renewed at the Second Council of Orléans in 536, canon 7, In ordinandis.
§ 3. He ought to do nothing without the counsel of the other Bishops. The same Anicetus:
The Archbishop himself shall conduct nothing concerning their cases or other common matters, according to the statutes of the Apostles, without the counsel of them all; nor shall they act without his counsel except insofar as pertains to their own parishes, because the Most High rejoices in such concord and is glorified in his members.
The same thing was also rightly decreed by the laws of France, book 1, chapter 8, in the time of Charlemagne. For a Bishop needs his own authority and liberty for governing; if he judges that something should prudently be altered, let him indicate it to the Metropolitan.
§ 4. They are not to be called Primates. The same Anicetus:
Let no Archbishops be called Primates except those who hold the first cities, whose Bishops the Apostles and successors of the Apostles regularly appointed to be Patriarchs and Primates, unless some nation should be converted to the faith for which, because of their multitude, it is necessary that a Primate be appointed. But let the others who have obtained other Metropolitan Sees be named not Primates but Metropolitans.
If, however, any one of the Metropolitans has become puffed up and wishes, without the presence or counsel of all the Bishops of the province, to conduct either their cases or other cases except only those which pertain to his own parish, or wishes to burden them, let him be strictly corrected by all, lest he dare to presume such things thereafter. But if he appears incorrigible and disobedient to them, let his contumacy be reported to this Apostolic See—to which it has been commanded that all the judgments of Bishops be terminated—so that vengeance may be taken upon him and the others may have fear. If, however, because of excessive distance, the inconvenience of the time, or the roughness of the journey, it should be burdensome to bring his case to this See, then let the case be brought to his Primate and judged before him by the authority of this holy See.
§ 5. They make a profession of the faith of the Roman Church and seek the pallium. Thus John to Wilibert, Bishop of Cologne, Distinction 100, chapter 4:
We cannot now confer upon you the pallium you desire, because we have found that the page containing your profession of faith contains less than it ought, since—
—in it you made no mention of any of the holy universal Synods in which the Symbol of our faith is contained, nor of the constitutions of the decretal Roman Pontiffs according to custom; neither did you fortify it with your own subscription nor send anyone who would confirm it by oath.
§ 6. Let him attempt nothing in another’s jurisdiction. Thus Celestine to the Bishops of Gaul:
First, according to the decrees of the Canons, let each province be content with its own Metropolitan, as the enactments of our predecessor given to the Bishop of Narbonne contain; nor let room for usurpation be granted to any priest to the injury of another. Thus let each, content with the limits granted to him, presume nothing in another’s province. Nor, to the exclusion of clerics who have served meritoriously in their own Churches, let foreigners and strangers, previously unknown, be preferred to those who deserve well by the testimony of their own citizens, lest the Episcopate appear to be some new college from which Bishops are made. Let no Bishop be given to men unwilling. The consent and desire of the clergy, people, and order are required.
Only then let one man be chosen from another Church, if among the clerics of the very city for which a Bishop is to be ordained no worthy man—which we do not believe can happen—can be found. For first those men must be rejected, so that some from foreign Churches may deservedly be preferred. Each cleric has the fruit of his own service in the Church in which he has passed his life through all the offices. Let no one steal into another’s stipends, nor dare to claim for himself the reward owed to another. Let the clerics have the power to resist if they see themselves burdened, and let them not fear to reject those whom they perceive entering upon them obliquely.
And a little afterward:
The Apostle follows and supplies the rest, speaking in the same spirit, that a man of one wife ought to be consecrated Bishop. Let priests therefore be chosen according to this rule; and if any unlawful ordinations have been made, let them be removed, because they cannot stand, nor will those who arrived in such a manner be able to evade our examination, although they suppose that they lie hidden, so that no reverence for religion may be darkened by obscurity. Let there be no vain glorying among those who wear the pallium. Let those who are Bishops follow the Episcopal manner.
Let Daniel, as we have said, who believed that he could evade an accusation by Pontifical honor and reached so great a summit by hiding from his accusers, know himself meanwhile to be separated from the assembly of Your Holiness. He ought to submit himself to our judgment if he knows that he has confidence in his conscience. But the priest of the Church of Marseille, who is said—which it is impious to say—to have rejoiced so greatly in the murder of your brother that he went to meet the man who arrived stained with his blood, intending to have a share with him, we delegate to your College to be heard. Given on the seventh day before the Kalends of August, in the consulship of the most illustrious men Felix and Taurus.
§ 7. Let him celebrate a Synod every year, to which all the Bishops of the province are bound to come. Thus the Third Synod of Orléans, celebrated in 540, chapter 1:
First, every Metropolitan ought at a suitable time each year to hold a synodal Council in his province with his comprovincials. But if infirmity or some certain necessity detains him so that he cannot be present at another appointed place, let him summon his brethren to his own city. But if, within a biennium in which tranquility of the times has been divinely granted, no Synod has been convened by the Metropolitan after the provincials have been admonished, let the Metropolitan himself, because of his delay in convoking it, not presume to celebrate Masses for an entire year. If those summoned, when not detained by bodily infirmity, disdain to be present at his summons, they shall lie under a like sentence. Let them also know that this excuse has been taken away from them if they believe that their absence is to be excused by the division of their lot.
The same and more are decreed in the Council of Mérida, chapters 4, 5, and 6. That it is his office to watch over morals and correct all things through Synods was also decreed in many other Councils, including Tarragona, chapters 6 and 13. Letters of this sort are to be directed by the Metropolitan through the brethren, so that they bring to the Council not only presbyters from the Cathedral Church but also some from the diocesan Churches, and ought to bring with them some laymen of the Church.
§ 8. Bishops are bound to acknowledge the Metropolitan and do nothing without him. The Second Council of Braga renewed this:
Throughout the several provinces a Bishop ought to acknowledge the Primacy of the Metropolitan Bishop and permit him to assume the care of the Primacy; the remaining Bishops are to do nothing apart from him, according to what is contained in the canon established of old by our Fathers. For this reason the Metropolitan Bishop too shall presumptuously assume nothing for himself without the counsel of the others.
Bishops cannot establish anything new in their parish without the Metropolitan’s knowledge, for the authority of Metropolitans is principal over the Bishops subject to them. Therefore the Synod of Antioch commands them to have regard to the Metropolitans.
§ 9. The abuse of Metropolitans who delegate their own duties to Bishops is reprehended and condemned in the Eighth General Synod, Act 10, canon 24:
Divine Scripture says, “Cursed is every man who does the work of the Lord negligently.” Certain Metropolitans, having fallen into extreme negligence and sloth, bring to themselves by their commands the Bishops subject to them and commit to them the divine offices of their own Church, the litanies, and altogether all the sacred ministries which pertain to themselves, so that through them they celebrate everything which they ought eagerly to perform by themselves; and through those who have merited the Episcopal dignity they in a certain manner exhibit clerics subject to themselves.
Contrary to the ecclesiastical laws, however, these same men devote themselves to secular cares and arrangements, abandoning perseverance in prayers and supplications for their own offenses and the ignorance of the people—something which is found nowhere at all among any men, since it is altogether contrary to the canonical precepts. And, what is more grievous, the aforesaid Bishops are said to be commanded to perform these ministries for their stipends in distinct turns of the months, which is shown in every way to be foreign to Apostolic protection. All these things render men of this kind worthy of great, numerous, and most vehement condemnations; for by these things which they do, such men are proved also to languish under satanic vainglory and pride.
Therefore, if any of the Metropolitans, after this determination of the holy and universal Synod, abusing the same boldness or pride and contempt, should attempt to have the ministries due in his own city performed not by himself with fear, eagerness, and a good conscience, but through his suffragan Bishops, let him pay the penalties before his own Patriarch and either be corrected or deposed.
§ 10. His principal care concerns his own ordinary diocese, which he governs; his care for other jurisdictions is secondary, yet necessary. Thus he hears controversies and supplies for the negligence of his Bishops when he himself does what the Bishop ought to have done voluntarily. Cause 9, question 3:
Since we know that all are debtors bound to preserve the sacred rules, we ought in every way inviolably to preserve the rule which says that there ought to be stewards in every Church. If each Metropolitan has appointed a steward in his own Church, it is indeed well; but if not, the Bishop of Constantinople has authority by his own power to place stewards over his Church. Likewise the Metropolitans may do so if the Bishops subject to them have not taken care to appoint stewards in their own Churches. The same is also to be observed in monasteries.
Hence he traverses his dioceses, visits, inquires, and amends the life of the subjects; for which reason subsidies are owed to him in turn: chapter Cum ex officio, On Prescription; chapter Sopitae; canon 14; canon Cum nuper, On Censuses, in Gregory. In this visitation he can use all the Pontifical insignia, bless the people, and command that the cross be carried before him; Clementine Archiepiscopo, On Privileges.
These things established by the Fathers are altogether to be recalled into use for restoring the discipline of the Church; nor ought anyone’s power to be so great that it changes this order. Unity and integrity of life cannot be preserved if every Bishop wishes to be Pope in his own diocese.