1. It was not even a bishop who call the first seven ecumenical councils. It was the emperors. So since when a human institution has power over divine institution? Does the PhD Orthodox want to cross the Thames (ie. becoming Anglican)?
Thus it stands to reason that who call a council is not sufficient ground to dismiss Roman authority.
Plus, what did he mean by "control?" Surely the papal legates presided the councils with eastern bishops and so did the emperors (as shown by the fact that the names of the legates were on the top). But if "control" means keeping order, well the emperors did that. Constantine, for example, make sure that the council proceed peacefully. He funded it as well.
2. What is this nonsense? Which Chalcedon is he talking about? There were, "Paschasinus, Bishop of Lilybaeum (Marsala) in Sicily, Lucentius, also a bishop, Julian, Bishop of Cos, and two priests, Boniface and Basil; Paschasinus was to preside over the coming council in the pope's place" (Catholic Encyclopedia: Council of Chalcedon
). In fact check out what the legates, mere bishops and priests, said to Disocoros, the monophysite Patriarch of Alexandria:
It was the pope's senior legate, the bishop Paschasinus for whom Leo had demanded the actual presidency of the council, who opened the proceedings, explaining as he said, the instructions sent to the council by "him who is the head of all the churches." And, in the first place, Dioscoros was not to be given a place among the bishops. If he resists this ruling he must be expelled. Such are our instructions, and if Dioscoros is allowed to sit as a bishop, we leave. Dioscoros, said the second legate, is here only to be judged. To treat him as a father of the council would be to insult the rest. Dioscoros then left his seat and was given a place in the nave of the church.
And Pope Leo I was held in such a "low" regard that those forever schismatic easterners asked for his ratification of the controversial Canon 28 in which they want Constantinople to be second to Rome. Leo then quashed that worthless canon.
3. So if the eastern bishops read Leo's letters and tried to understand it, instead of immediately approved it, then it follows that Pope Leo is not the head of the Church? What a dumb conclusion.
PhD these days....