I was just curious to know if anyone here has every come across this objection. I was reading through a book by John Meyendorff, who is an Eastern Orthodox writer, and he said the following Canon shows that Rome only had a jurisdiction like Alexandria
Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.
Would this not imply that Rome was not understood to have universal jurisdiction by 325 AD?