The Mirage of an “Imperfect Council”: Authority, Illusion, and the Crisis of the Church
The prolonged crisis within the Catholic Church—doctrinal, liturgical, and juridical—has not only fractured visible unity but has also generated a secondary crisis: a crisis of proposed solutions. Among the most recent and increasingly circulated is the notion of an “imperfect general council,” advanced in varying forms by different actors within the traditionalist world. Though arising independently, these proposals converge upon a common thesis: that, in the absence—or perceived absence—of a functioning papal authority, bishops might assemble, deliberate, and potentially resolve the crisis through extraordinary means, even to the point of electing a Roman Pontiff.
Two principal strands now require careful examination. The first is the Unam Sanctam initiative, associated intrinsically with His Excellency, Bishop Pierre Roy, a sedevacantist prelate who has publicly advanced the proposal that traditional bishops might gather in council to address the crisis and, if necessary, provide for the election of a pope.¹ The second is a parallel but distinct proposal emerging from the Transalpine Redemptorists, a traditional religious congregation formerly associated with the Society of St. Pius X, later reconciled with the Holy See, and more recently engaged in canonical dispute and increasingly critical of the postconciliar hierarchy, while at present retaining canonical status.² These two movements are not collaborative, yet their simultaneous emergence reveals a common instinct: that the crisis of authority may be resolved by an act of collective episcopal initiative.
Such a proposal, however, must be judged not by its intention—however understandable—but by its conformity to Catholic ecclesiology. For the Church is not a voluntary association capable of reconstructing her own constitution in extremis; she is a divine society, whose visible structure is not subject to improvisation. The election of a Roman Pontiff, in particular, is not merely procedural but ontological: the pope is constituted as Bishop of Rome and Successor of St Peter through a juridically and sacramentally defined process rooted in the Roman clergy, historically embodied in the College of Cardinals. Any attempt to approximate or replace this structure raises immediate and serious theological difficulties.
It is precisely here that the critiques of His Excellency, Bishop Markus Ramolla and His Excellency, Bishop Donald Sanborn converge with notable clarity. Both prelates, operating from distinct theological frameworks—Bishop Ramolla as an independent traditional Catholic bishop addressing the faithful on the theological implications of the proposal, and Bishop Sanborn as head of the Roman Catholic Institute and a leading exponent of sedeprivationist thought—nonetheless arrive at substantially the same conclusion: that the proposed “imperfect council” lacks the essential conditions required for legitimacy.
As His Excellency, Bishop Markus Ramolla argues in his address, the entire proposal rests upon a fundamental confusion between the sacramental reality of episcopal consecration and the juridical reality of ecclesiastical governance, insisting that “the proof has to be given that the bishops in the traditional movement… have actually the power of jurisdiction,” a power which, in Catholic doctrine, derives solely from the Roman Pontiff.³ This distinction—between orders and jurisdiction—is not a technicality but a cornerstone of Catholic theology, for without jurisdiction a bishop may validly confer sacraments, yet he does not possess the authority to govern the Church or to participate in acts which presuppose such authority.
From this principle follows an unavoidable conclusion. As Bishop Ramolla continues, if such bishops “do not hold an office… they cannot elect a Roman pontiff,” and any such attempt would necessarily result in an election that is doubtful in its very substance.⁴ The gravity of this doubt cannot be overstated, for the Church cannot be governed by conjecture, nor can the identity of the Vicar of Christ rest upon probabilities; a doubtful pope is, in effect, no pope at all. This is further reinforced by the principle of reception, since, as he observes, “any papal election… is in doubt if the universal Church does not accept this election,” thereby underscoring that the Church, as a visible society, must recognise her head in a manner that is clear, certain, and universal.⁵
From a complementary perspective, His Excellency, Bishop Donald Sanborn articulates an almost identical critique, beginning with the important concession that those proposing such solutions are motivated by a genuine desire to resolve the crisis, noting that “everybody means well… they want to solve the problem in the Church,” yet insisting that this does not suffice to render the proposal sound.⁶ He proceeds to define the concept under discussion with theological precision, observing that “an imperfect council consists of bishops who have jurisdiction already from the pope,” thereby establishing that the very term presupposes conditions which are manifestly absent in the present case.⁷ The implications of this definition are decisive, for if an imperfect council requires bishops who already possess jurisdiction, then a gathering of bishops who explicitly lack such jurisdiction cannot, even analogously, be described as such. Bishop Sanborn reinforces this by noting that the bishops in question neither represent the universal Church nor possess the authority to govern it, concluding that “a number of people without any jurisdiction… coming together is not going to produce anything,” and warning that such an initiative risks ending in “absurdity and failure.”⁸
While theologians such as Thomas Cajetan and Robert Bellarmine did indeed contemplate extraordinary scenarios in which the Church might supply for defects in her visible structures, their conclusions are frequently misunderstood or misapplied. Cajetan, writing amid conciliar crises, allows that in extreme necessity the Church may act ministerialiter to preserve her constitution, yet always through those who possess true ecclesiastical standing and authority.⁹ Likewise, Bellarmine insists upon the necessity of a caput visibile et determinatum, a visible and determinate head, without which the Church’s unity cannot be sustained.¹⁰ A claimant whose title is doubtful or only partially received cannot fulfil this office. Their arguments, therefore, do not justify the assembly of bishops lacking ordinary jurisdiction, but rather reinforce the principle that even extraordinary remedies must remain anchored in the Church’s visible and juridical order.
What, then, of the Transalpine Redemptorists? Their position introduces a further layer of complexity. Historically aligned with the Society of St. Pius X, subsequently reconciled with the Holy See, and now engaged in public dispute with ecclesiastical authorities, they occupy a liminal position within the Church: canonically recognised, yet increasingly critical of the structures to which they remain juridically bound. Their apparent openness to similar ideas of episcopal initiative does not arise from sedevacantist premises, as in the case of Bishop Roy, but from a growing disillusionment within a recognise-and-resist framework. Yet the theological difficulty remains unchanged. Canonical status does not confer the authority to convene a council or to substitute for the structures of the universal Church, and any such attempt risks not reform but rupture.
It must, however, be noted in fairness that His Excellency, Bishop Pierre Roy does not advance the proposal in a crude or precipitous form. He explicitly distances himself from any immediate attempt to act, cautioning against “jumping” directly to the convocation of a council or the election of a pontiff, and instead frames the initiative as exploratory in character. In his own words, the present aim is to invite “objections” and wider engagement so that the proposal may be tested, clarified, and, if possible, strengthened before any concrete step is taken.¹¹ This posture is further underscored by his willingness to solicit participation from across the fractured spectrum of traditional Catholicism—extending beyond sedevacantist circles to include those of a recognise-and-resist disposition and even those within the Ecclesia Dei structures under the present hierarchy. The initiative, therefore, presents itself not as a settled programme but as a developing thesis, deliberately opened to critique in the hope of attaining coherence.
Yet this very openness, while commendable as a matter of prudence, does not resolve the underlying theological difficulty. For the issue at stake is not whether such a proposal may be refined through discussion, but whether it can be rendered coherent at all within the framework of Catholic ecclesiology. The invitation to objections cannot supply jurisdiction where none exists, nor can deliberation generate the authority required to constitute or recognise a Roman Pontiff. The danger, therefore, is that what begins as a provisional inquiry—however cautiously framed—may, through momentum or misplaced confidence, advance toward implementation without having resolved its foundational defects. A proposal which requires authority cannot be brought into being by a process that lacks it.
A further distinction must be made, reflecting a necessary pastoral realism. His Grace, Archbishop Jerome Lloyd, Primus of the Old Roman Apostolate has observed that, quite apart from the specific proposal of an “imperfect council,” there exists among the faithful a genuine and widespread desire to see greater contact, cooperation, and mutual recognition among traditional Catholic bishops. In an ecclesial landscape marked by fragmentation, isolation, and often unnecessary duplication of effort, the notion of a gathering—understood not as a juridical act but as an opportunity for consultation, networking, and collaboration—is not only intelligible but in many respects desirable. Such an encounter, properly conceived, could serve to strengthen bonds of charity, clarify common positions, and provide a visible sign of unity among those who, despite differing theological analyses, are nevertheless united in their rejection of the postconciliar crisis.
Yet this pastoral welcome must be sharply distinguished from any movement toward conclavism. For while a gathering of bishops may foster dialogue and cooperation, it does not—and cannot—possess the authority to constitute the visible head of the Church. On this point, the Archbishop’s perspective aligns with the critiques advanced by Bishop Ramolla and Bishop Sanborn: that any initiative which moves beyond consultation into acts proper to the universal jurisdiction of the Church risks exceeding its theological limits. The danger lies precisely in the transition from fraternity to authority, from discussion to decision, from collaboration to constitution. What is pastorally beneficial at one level becomes ecclesiologically untenable at another.
The convergence of these proposals—emerging simultaneously from distinct theological positions—reveals not their strength but their shared weakness. They are responses to a real crisis, but responses shaped more by urgency than by principle, attempting to resolve the absence of visible unity by means which themselves lack the conditions necessary to establish that unity. In seeking to repair the fabric of ecclesial authority, they risk further tearing it.
The temptation, in times of crisis, is always toward action—toward doing something, anything, to resolve the situation. Even where such action is tempered by prudence, as in the case of Bishop Roy’s caution against “jumping” prematurely to a council or conclave, the underlying difficulty remains unchanged: a process, however careful, cannot generate the authority it presupposes. Consultation may refine an idea, but it cannot confer jurisdiction; deliberation may clarify a proposal, but it cannot constitute a Roman Pontiff. The history of the Church teaches a more sobering lesson: that fidelity, not ingenuity, is the condition of restoration. The crisis will not be resolved by novel mechanisms or improvised councils, but by a return—however long delayed—to the principles that have always governed the Church’s life. Until then, the mirage of an “imperfect council” will remain what it is: not a solution, but an illusion.
¹ Unam Sanctam initiative, official site, accessed April 2026, outlining the proposal associated with His Excellency, Bishop Pierre Roy for an “imperfect general council” of traditional bishops.
² Ousted order joins reforms rebellion, Bishop Accountability, April 2026, detailing the current position and tensions surrounding the Transalpine Redemptorists.
³ His Excellency, Bishop Markus Ramolla, Our Take on the Imperfect General Council, address to the faithful, Our Lady of Victory YouTube channel, 2026.
⁴ Ibid.
⁵ Ibid.
⁶ His Excellency, Bishop Donald Sanborn, interview with Mr Stephen Heiner, Questions for the Rector Live #8, MHT Seminary YouTube channel, 2026.
⁷ Ibid.
⁸ Ibid.
⁹ Thomas Cajetan, De Comparatione Auctoritatis Papae et Concilii, cap. XIII–XX (Rome, 1511).
¹⁰ Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30 (Rome, 1586–1593).
¹¹ His Excellency, Bishop Pierre Roy, interview with Mr Kevin Davis, Bishop Pierre Roy Answers Questions Regarding an Imperfect General Council, Catholic Family Podcast YouTube channel, 2026.
related articles
Latest articles
- Today’s Mass: April 24 St Fidelis of SigmaringenSt Fidelis of Sigmaringen, born Mark Rey in 1577, abandoned a successful legal career to embrace Capuchin poverty and priesthood. A fearless preacher against Protestant errors in Switzerland, he united charity with doctrinal clarity. Martyred in 1622, he stands as a witness to fidelity, courage, and unwavering adherence to the Catholic faith.
- St George and the Soul of England: Truth, Judgment, and the Crisis of a NationOn St George’s Day, the Church reflects on the contradiction faced by England, which honours a martyr while straying from the faith for which he died. The call is for a return to truth, highlighting the erosion of moral clarity and authority, and urging repentance to restore the nation’s foundations.
- Today’s homily: St George, MartyrOn the feast of Saint George, the homily reveals the true meaning of his witness: fidelity unto martyrdom, the defeat of the spiritual enemy, and the defence of the Church. Applied to England today, it calls for conversion, courageous witness, and renewal through Christians who live, speak, and suffer for truth.
- Sermon for St. GeorgeThe feast of St. George, patron saint of England, is celebrated despite limited knowledge of his life. He was a soldier-martyr against idol worship under Emperor Diocletian. St. George’s significance reminds us that faith transcends nationalism, urging a unified Christian identity amid contemporary ideological divides.
- Today’s Mass: April 23 St George, MartyrSaint George was a Roman soldier and Christian martyr, traditionally martyred under Diocletian. Venerated across East and West, he symbolizes courage, faith, and victory over evil, famously depicted slaying a dragon. Patron of England, his witness embodies steadfast fidelity to Christ unto death and inspires enduring devotion worldwide.
Leave a Reply