I am not sure I follow you. Some canons are doctrinal and are always in force. Some canons are disciplinary and disciplines have changed.
Sure, but the underlying principles involved in those disciplinary canons haven't changed. I'm not saying that a given canon is always invoked in a particular situation, only that the canon remains a canon. We don't amend the canon, declare it non-binding, replace it with something else, etc.
By ignoring it don't we? I mean for starters there are: no Jewish doctors, no public baths(I would think swimming at pools would fall under this), no going to theaters or bars(inns), bishops not transferring Sees, etc. There are a whole bunch of them we routinely ignore hierarchs included. Do we consider them non-binding or is it like speeding, you are breaking the law but the police have to catch you for punishment to be applied?
If a canon is not enforced, it does not follow that it is no longer in force. What makes a canon canonical is the canon within the canon, not "Because we said so".
There are plenty of canons which are not enforced, or which are not followed to the letter due to a widely accepted economy, or a number of other reasons. But they remain in force. Sure, it's not as clean as the Roman system, but the Roman system sees nothing wrong with abolishing the Nicene canons with one stroke of the pen in the early 1980's.
Which brings up the worrisome thought of a bishop deciding he is going to start applying penalties to these long unenforced canons.
Well, let him try. How long do you think he'd get away with it?
For example how can we that the canon that says a bishop must not put away his wife is enforce when none of us allow a married man to be bishop?
If we started to allow married men to become bishops, would we have to make up a new canon to establish that a bishop must not put away his wife?
Sadly, I think we would need several.
My point was merely that we already have something in place for that situation, we wouldn't need to create a new canon because the old one expired, but LOL.