What if any part did Rome play in the 7 Holy Ecumenical Councils?
I have a friend (RC) who says that delgates were sent from Rome and all
the Dogmatic Proclaimations were signed by Romes Delagates and not by the local Hierarchs.
I know thats the biggest bunch of Bias Rhetoric I've ever heard In my life, but where do I got about proveing it?
In Christ
OL 
http://biblestudy.churches.net/CCEL/FAT ... #TopOfPage
This is a good online book you may want to save to your hard drive, "the Papacy" - do a word search for "ecumenical council"
OL,
That's one of the strangest claims I've ever heard. I mean, that's not even a mis-interpretation of history, that sounds like a speculation pulled out of thin air. The 2nd Ecumenical Council is a fine example that disproves such assertions. The 2nd Ecumenical Council was held in Constantinople and was presided over, at first, by Gregory the Theologian--who The Pope of Rome was not in communion with. That same council wished to bring an end to the schism at Antioch, and essentially was willing to look favorably on Meletius--exactly the opposite of the Roman position. After Gregory retired, so to speak, the Council replaced Saint Gregory with Saint Nektarios, who was taken straight from the catechumenate to being a bishop. Rome, suffice to say, caused an uproar over such a move and did not recognize the new Bishop. The 2nd Ecumenical Council was composed of all Eastern Fathers, there wasn't even any Papal representatives present, let alone ones who had the authority to drive the Council's direction.
The Council passed much that the Pope of Rome refused to accept, and indeed at first the Pope only accepted the Creed of the Council. As late as the 7th century (as can be seen in the Papal Documents) the Popes of Rome did not accept many (if not all) of the canons of the 2nd Ecumenical council. During this time, the East fully accepted all of these canons, and indeed some of the canons of the 2nd Council were built upon by later Ecumenical councils (cf the 2nd Ecumenical Council, Canon 3 and the 4th Ecumenical Council, , Canon 28). I recall reading that it was not until the Pope had, by force during the crusades, installed a Latin Bishop in Constantinople that he recognized the validity of certain canons (e.g., the afore-mentioned 2nd Council, Canon 3).
In the end, the 2nd Ecumenical Council sent their decisions (381) to the Pope of Rome, who utterly refused to accept what had been decided (excepting the additions to the Nicene Creed). In the next year, some Fathers continued the council, though the Pope of Rome still would not budge. So, the council ended, and the Fathers returned to their Churhes. As the Council came to an end, the Pope refused to accept the Council's canons, and it would be centuries before the Popes would count the 2nd Council as even a true Ecumenical Council, and then it was only done because of the creed and general acceptance of it. The east, after the Council, fully applied the canons and creeds of the 2nd Ecumenical Council, accepting it as a true and authoritative Council.
There are many more details, but these should be good as a start to answer such assertions. If I were you, I'd suggest to your friend that he stick with speculations that he can at least support with historical evidence 
