Is Canon 28 Binding?

In my previous post, I discussed Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon (you'll find the full text of the canon there). But I should have put an asterisk on the conversation because Canon 28 isn't properly part of the council. You'll remember from an earlier post, that what makes a council ecumenical is ratification from the Roman Pontiff. Canons are part of councils. And naturally, canons also have to be ratified. However, Canon 28 was not ratified by Pope Leo (Roman Pontiff at the time). So Canon 28 isn't part of the council and thus isn't binding. If you are Orthodox, this may sound too convenient. I've already suggested why Roman Ratification is the correct theory in the previous link. However, I want to add two things. First, even Saints in the East agree with the Roman position, and second, a case can be made for Canon 28 not being problematic for Catholicism. 

First, there are the sayings of Pope St. Gelasius (about 490 AD), and Pope St. Gelasius is recognized as a Saint in the East. On the topic of Canon 28 in the Bond of Anathema, he declares, 

They [Easterners] may say, as usual, that if the Council of Chalcedon is allowed to stand, they will have to accept everything which apparently was done there. It must everything or, if some part can be rejected, then no part of it can stand. These people should know that only that part must be accepted by the whole Church which is in accordance with the Holy Scriptures, the tradition of our ancestors, in accordance with the canons and regulations of the Church, only that part which promotes the Catholic and Apostolic faith, communion, and truth, for the accomplishment of which the Apostolic See has ordered this done and has confirmed it after it had been accomplished. But other things [canon 28], those which were done or simply talked about through foolish presumption, things which the Apostolic See in no way ordered, which were clearly and speedily rejected by the legates of the Apostolic See which the Apostolic See, even with the Emperor Marcian asking for them, in no way approved, which the bishop of Constantinople at the time, Anatolius, claimed not to have sought and did not deny was in the power of the bishop of the Apostolic See; in sum, as we said, that which the Apostolic See has not accepted, because it was shown to be contradictory to the privileges of the universal church, can in no way be accepted. (emphasis my own)

A few things to take note of here. Clearly and unequivocally, he rejects Canon 28 as did the Roman representatives at the time. He mentions the speed to which they were rejected, and this is significant because one will often hear that Papal supremacy was slowly developed over time, and didn't find its current form until the first Vatican Council. The speed to which Canon 28 was rejected should indicate that even at the Council of Chalcedon, which took place in 451 AD, was so obviously contrary to Roman self understanding that it had to be rejected, and thus it is harder to say it was a development over time. If it was obvious in 451, then in order to say it developed over time the window to which you have to make that claim is drastically narrowed. Also note that the Bishop of Constantinople, Anatolius, did not deny that it was within Romes power to deny the canon. So even that which had the most to gain from the attempted power shift, the Bishop of Constantinople, didn't deny the power of the Roman Primate to veto the canon. And since the Apostolic See has not accepted the canon, then the canon simply cannot be accepted by the whole church. This is a Saint in the East making strong statements about the power of the Apostolic See. Was this Saint a heretic? A hard pill to swallow. Even harder when you consider what else he said. 

Yet we do not hesitate to mention that which is known to the universal Church, namely that, as the see of blessed Peter the Apostle has the right to loose what has been bound by the judgments of any bishops whatsoever, and since it has jurisdiction over every church, so that no one may pass judgment on its verdict, the canons providing that an appeal should lie to it from any part of the world, no one is permitted to appeal against its judgment.

A clear claim to universal jurisdiction.

But, even if Pope St. Leo had ratified Canon 28, and Pope St. Gelasius wasn't so strongly opposed to it, would this prove that Rome doesn't have the power that it claims? Perhaps not, for the text of the canon states,

...the city which is honoured by the imperial power and senate and enjoying privileges equalling older imperial Rome, should also be elevated to her level in ecclesiastical affairs and take second place after her. (emphasis my own)

To take second place after Rome seems to indicate that though the Bishop of Constantinople would enjoy some new power because of its proximity to the new world power, it still wouldn't be exactly equal to Rome in ecclesiastical affairs. The language of equality sounds limited to the cities themselves, and not the diocese of those respective cities. That is, the civic power of the city is now equal, but not the ecclesial powers of the bishops in those cities. I find myself siding with the Popes on this matter in rejecting it, for even if there was some case to be made with the clause "second place" it is difficult to make this cohere with what it means to be elevated to her level. It would be better to just reject it outright.