Note that all four so-called ecumenical councils--apart from the Council of Ephesus (431)--were held in the environs of the imperial capital, Constantinople. All councils were convened by the imperial family (Nicaea: Constantine; Constantinople: Theodosius I; Ephesus: Theodosius II; Chalcedon: Pulcheria and Marcian). What would the advantages be to holding the council close to, or in, the capital? Note that the Council of Ephesus, the only council held at some distance from the capital, was the site of a face-off between the Bishops of Alexandria (not picture) and Constantinople, at which the Bishop of Constantinople was condemned.

A second Council of Ephesus was held in 449 (convened once more by Theodosius II), at which the Bishop of Constantinople, Flavian, was once more condemned, and so severely beaten that he died of his wounds. Later church councils repudiated this meeting; it become known as the Robbers' Council and is not considered one of the "ecumenical" councils of the early church.