From what I can gather, it seems like they are essentially the same rank, they just oversee diocese of different sizes. Sort of like comparing the governor of California or Texas to the governor of Vermont or Wyoming. Is this correct, or do archbishops oversee bishops, the way a hypothetical governor of the west coast would oversee the governors of California, Oregon, and Washington?
Bishops are the head of a diocese. Dioceses are grouped into ecclesiastical provinces, which are headed by an archbishop. The archbishop has some ecclesiastical authority over the bishops.
See the Wikipedia article for more details:
It’s mostly what @Northern_Piper says: a bishop leads a diocese; an archbishop leads an archdiocese, which is the main diocese in an ecclesiastical province - a grouping of several dioceses, the most important of which is designated an archdiocese. There are some supervisory functions of the archbishop over the bishops of the other dioceses in the province (his “suffragan bishops”, in church terminology - note that the Anglican Church uses this term in a very different meaning). But in addition to this, it is AFAIK also possible to award the rank of archbishop as a reward to a bishop - either as personam or by temporarily elevating his diocese to an archdiocese for the duration of this particular bishop’s tenure. In these cases, it would be a purely titular issue, without affecting the structure of ecclesiastical provinces.
Also, there are some “exempt” dioceses which, for historical or political reasons, are not part of a province but rather report directly to the pope. Those may also be titled archdioceses.
As one example, when the bishop of a diocese dies or otherwise leaves office, there will be some time delay before a new one is named, and in the meantime, the archbishop of the local ecclesiastical province will take on some part of the leadership role remotely.
Of note, sacramentally, there’s no difference. It’s a purely administrative distinction.
Just chipping in some terminological thing: The primary diocese of the province is also called its “metropolis”, and the archbishop running it is the “metropolitan”. This usage has nothing to do with the size of the city he’s based in; in fact, in Europe, diocesan and metropolitan sees can also be in fairly small towns for historical reasons.
That’s good to know. I associate the term “metropolitan” with Eastern Orthodox churches, mostly in either the areas that used to be part of the Byzantine Empire or in Russia. I didn’t know it was also used in the Roman Catholic Church.
Also used in the Anglican churches.
In the U.S. there is the Archdiocese of Dubuque (iowa); Santa Fe (New Mexico); and Mobile (Alabama)_ among others. Usually that’s where the original church structure in that area was developed, long before places like Des Moines, Albuquerque and Birmingham came along.
In the Anglican Church of Canada, there are four archbishops, one for each ecclesiastical province. The archbishop position is not tied to any particular diocese. Any bishop can be chosen as archbishop by the provincial synod. The archbishop is then the metropolitan for that diocese, but there is not a permanent metropolitan seat.
Other Anglican churches may do it differently. In the Church of England, the Archbishop of York is always the metropolitan for the northern dioceses, and the Archbishop of Canterbury is always the metropolitan for the southern dioceses.
Not sure how it works for other Anglican churches.
Another cool thing to know is that the geographical structure of the Catholic Church (and other churches that follow the same pattern) was based on the administrative system of the late Roman Empire: Provinces subdivided into dioceses subdivided into neighbourhoods (parishes). That’s how the Empire was run in late antiquity, when the church copied that pattern, and that’s how the church is still run today.