In 2016, there was a document produced by the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, "Synodality and Primacy During the First Millennium: Towards a Common Understanding in Service to the Unity of the Church" (Chieti, 21 September 2016 [sometimes this document is simply known as "The Chieti Document"]). In paragraph 19, while stating that appeals were made to Rome, also admitted that appeals were made to other sees:
Appeals regarding
disciplinary matters were also made to the see of Constantinople, and to other
sees.
The footnote for the above reads:
Cf. Fourth Ecumenical
Council (Chalcedon, 451), canons 9 and 17.
These canons read thusly:
Canon IX.
If any Clergyman have
a matter against another clergyman, he shall not forsake his bishop and run to
secular courts; but let him first lay open the matter before his own Bishop, or
let the matter be submitted to any person whom each of the parties may, with
the Bishop's consent, select. And if any one shall contravene these decrees,
let him be subjected to canonical penalties. And if a clergyman have a
complaint against his own or any other bishop, let it be decided by the synod
of the province. And if a bishop or clergyman should have a difference with the
metropolitan of the province, let him have recourse to the Exarch of the
Diocese, or to the throne of the Imperial City of Constantinople, and there let
it be tried.
. . .
Canon XVII.
Outlying or rural
parishes shall in every province remain subject to the bishops who now have
jurisdiction over them, particularly if the bishops have peaceably and
continuously governed them for the space of thirty years. But if within thirty
years there has been, or is, any dispute concerning them, it is lawful for
those who hold themselves aggrieved to bring their cause before the synod of
the province. And if any one be wronged by his metropolitan, let the matter be
decided by the exarch of the diocese or by the throne of Constantinople, as
aforesaid. And if any city has been, or shall hereafter be newly erected by
imperial authority, let the order of the ecclesiastical parishes follow the
political and municipal example. (NPNF2 14:274, 280)
One should also note the following from Eastern
Orthodox priest and scholar Laurent Cleenewerck:
We find other bishops
writing strong reprimands to other Churches. Bishop Dionysius of Corinth wrote
to the Athenians “censuring them” and to Bishop Palmas of Amastris he “directs”
a policy on repentance (Eusebius, The Church History [trans.
Paul Maier; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel, 1999], p. 159). We should also mention
the many bishops who “sharply rebuked” Bishop Victor of Rome in the affair of
the Asiatic Churches (Ibid., p. 198). The relationship between Rome and Corinth
was that of capital and colony. As a result, the Roman Church could certainly
write that refusal to reinstate the legitimate clergy was a serious offence. In
short, a comparison of Clement’s letter with similar correspondence yields
nothing in favor of ‘an early Papal decretal.’ (Laurent Cleenewerck, His
Broken Body: Understanding and Healing the Schism Between the Roman Catholic
and Eastern Orthodox Churches (An Orthodox Perspective) [Washington
D.C.: Euclid University Consortium Press, 2007], 150)
Such refutes the naïve reading of 1 Clement taken by many popular-level Roman Catholic apologists who simply think that the Church of Rome attempting to settle an issue in Corinth is evidence of papal primacy and/or the ultimate jurisdiction of the Roman See.
For previous treatments of 1 Clement on this issue, see:
Cyril Richardson on the occasion of 1 Clement