The point of the first part of the
canon is that the Bishop of Alexandria’s jurisdiction over certain other
bishops is confirmed. The concept of a patriarchate is, in fact, in the process
of forming. The Bishop of Alexandria has jurisdiction not only of a civil
province, as have the metropolitans mentioned in canon 4 of the same council (§
651j); but his jurisdiction extends over all the churches of all the provinces
of the civil diocese of Egypt, along with the various provinces of Libya and
the Pentapolis, or Cyrenaica. This much is clear. The problem is in the line
referring to the Bishop of Rome. The Bishop of Alexandria is to retain his
prerogatives, since this is also the custom of the Bishop of Rome. It is
also the custom of the Bishop of Rome to have jurisdiction over the bishops of
adjacent territories, providing a justification for others to do likewise? Or
is it the custom of the Bishop of Rome to recognize the prerogatives of the
Bishop of Alexandria, giving the council precedent for doing likewise? (William
A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, 3 vols. [Collegeville,
Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 1970], 1:287 n. 15)