In the general introduction to volume 14 of the second series of the Nicene Post-Nicene Fathers series, we read:
The Seven Ecumenical
Councils were all called together at the commandment and will pf Princes; without
any knowledge of the matter on the part of the Pope in one case at least (1st Constantinople);
without any consultation with him in the case of I. Nice, so far as we know,
and contrary to his expressed desire in at least the case of Chalcedon, when he
only gave a reluctant consent after the Emperor Marcian had already convoked
the synod. (NPNF2 14:xii)
Commenting on the First Council of
Constantinople (AD 381) and how it was not convened by the then-bishop
of Rome, Catholic historian Charles Joseph Hefele wrote:
2. With regard to the
second Œcumenical Synod, it is commonly asserted, that the bishops who composed
it themselves declared that they were assembled at Constantinople in accordance
with a letter of Pope Damasus to the Emperor Theodosius the Great (Theodoret; Hist.
Eccl. v. 9). But the document which has been relied upon as authority,
refers not to the Synod of the year 381, the second œcumenical, but, as we
shall show further on in the history of this Council, to the Synod of the year
382 .” (Cf. the notes of Valesius to Theodoret; Hist. Eccl. v. 9), which
actually did meet in accordance with the wish of Pope Damasus and the Western
Synod at Aquileia, but was not œcumenical. It is without effect, moreover, that
Baronius appeals to the sixth Œcumenical Council to prove that Pope Damasus had
a part in the calling of the second Œcumenical Synod. For what the Council says
is this: “When Macedonius spread abroad a false doctrine respecting the Holy
Spirit, Theodosius and Damasus immediately opposed him, and Gregory of
Nazianzus and Nectarius (his successor in the See of Constantinople) assembled
a synod in this royal city. (Hard. iii. p. 1419) This passage is obviously too vague and indefinite
to afford grounds for concluding that Pope Damasus co-operated in the summoning
of the Synod. Nay more, the words, “Gregory of Nazianzus and Nectarius
assembled a synod,” rather exclude than include the co-operation of Damasus.
Besides, it should not be forgotten that the Synod in question, held a.d. 381, as we have already remarked,
was not originally regarded as œcumenical, and obtained this rank at a later
period on its being received by the West. It was summoned as a general council
of the Greek or Eastern Church; and if the Pope had no share in convoking it,
no inference can be drawn from this fact unfavourable to his claim to summon
œcumenical synods. (Charles Joseph Hefele, A History of the Councils
of the Church, Volume 1 [trans. William R. Clark; Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
1871], 9-10)