From The Councils of the Church: A Short History by Norman Tanner, page 20, bold added:
The question remains whether approval by the bishop of Rome was regarded as necessary. On the one hand, his explicit approval was not invariably expected or even sought, at least immediately. The very important creed of Constantinople I, for example, appears to have received no formal papal approval until after it was accepted by the Council of Chalcedon seventy years later in 451. Popes opposed the summoning of Chalcedon and took time before approving Constantiople II and Nicaea II. On the other hand, the approval of the bishop of Rome was sought as early as Nicaea I, and his sanction gradually came to be accepted as necessary for the decrees of an ecumenical council. But the approval of the other major sees, particularly Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch, was also regarded as necessary, so that Rome’s consent must be see within the context of the principle of unanimity, mentioned earlier, rather than as some isolated fiat.
From an above post, I think you all dismissed this quote too lightly. And, I see the quote as more authoritive then the replies given to it.