Well, leveling is always in order. :)
But without opening a can of theological worms, let me just say that the 4th Ecumenical Council seems to ascribe a little more weight to Leo, Archibishop of Rome, than the fact that he held a once-important historic see.
And for some counter-leveling in all charity, I think that is easier for folks under the omophorion (I hope I used that right) of the EP of Constantinople to want to "move" the patriarchate to Moscow or wherever. Because, as far as I know, Constantinople was the only patriarchate of the five that was created for largely political reasons and not because its importance as an Apostolic See was firmly established by the 4th century. The story of St. Andrew aside (and who am I to deny it?), I'm not aware that Byzantium/Constantinople figures very much at all in Eusebius's History.
I am certainly not opposed to Constantinople's rank but I think that the historicity/apostolicity of the see could be a minor issue to you because, well, it was really never Constantinople's strong suit. That's not a criticism, mind you, just a sociological observation.
Let me say that I agree with everything you wrote. No problems or issues there. Yes, of course, +Leo was given the full weight. Yet some things were taken away from him too. No one doubted or questioned that +Leo was first among other patriarchs. The Orthodox still recognize that. We are discussing not if but what that entails.
Our non-communion is not based on ranking but on theological differences; we simply do not profess the same faith (as the Orthodox see it).
I am Serbian Orthodox and we really don't consider ourselves to be "under" EP's omophorion; I would venture to say the Church of Greece is held captive by him, but his presence is a symbolic representation of our faith and in that sense he does reflect all of us to the world.