▁the ▁Bishop ▁of ▁Rome ▁had ▁authority ▁" with ▁reference ▁to ▁his ▁own ▁dioc ese ." ▁ ▁But ▁according ▁to ▁Fr . ▁James ▁F . ▁L ough lin , ▁there ▁is ▁an ▁alternative ▁Roman ▁Catholic ▁interpretation . ▁It ▁involves ▁five ▁different ▁arguments ▁" dra wn ▁respectively ▁from ▁the ▁gram mat ical ▁structure ▁of ▁the ▁sentence , ▁from ▁the ▁logical ▁sequence ▁of ▁ideas , ▁from ▁Catholic ▁anal ogy , ▁from ▁comparison ▁with ▁the ▁process ▁of ▁formation ▁of ▁the ▁By z antine ▁Patri arch ate , ▁and ▁from ▁the ▁authority ▁of ▁the ▁anci ents " ▁in ▁favor ▁of ▁an ▁alternative ▁understanding ▁of ▁the ▁canon . ▁According ▁to ▁this ▁interpretation , ▁the ▁canon ▁shows ▁the ▁role ▁the ▁Bishop ▁of ▁Rome ▁had ▁when ▁he , ▁by ▁his ▁authority , ▁confirmed ▁the ▁juris diction ▁of ▁the ▁other ▁patri arch s — an ▁interpretation ▁which ▁is ▁in ▁line ▁with ▁the ▁Roman ▁Catholic ▁understanding ▁of ▁the ▁Pope . ▁Thus , ▁the ▁Bishop ▁of ▁Alexand ria ▁pres ided ▁over ▁Egypt , ▁Lib ya ▁and ▁the ▁Pent apolis , ▁while ▁the ▁Bishop ▁of ▁Ant io ch ▁" en jo yed ▁a ▁similar ▁authority ▁throughout ▁the ▁great ▁dioc ese ▁of ▁Ori ens ," ▁and ▁all ▁by ▁the ▁authority ▁of ▁the ▁Bishop ▁of ▁Rome . ▁To ▁L ough lin , ▁that ▁was ▁the ▁only ▁possible ▁reason ▁to ▁invoke ▁the ▁custom ▁of ▁a ▁Roman ▁Bishop ▁in ▁a ▁matter ▁related ▁to ▁the ▁two ▁metropol itan ▁b ish ops ▁in ▁Alexand ria ▁and ▁Ant io ch . ▁ ▁However , ▁Protest ant ▁and ▁Roman ▁Catholic ▁interpret ations ▁have