Inside Pope Leo XIV’s first consistory: candid reflections from cardinals reveal unity hopes, structural tensions, and debates over liturgy and synodality.
Newsroom (11/01/2026 Gaudium Press ) When Pope Leo XIV summoned his first extraordinary consistory for 7–8 January 2026, the world’s cardinals descended upon Rome with curiosity, wariness, and guarded optimism. Yet even before the first session began in the Paul VI Hall, something was amiss. Barely 170 of the College of Cardinals’ 245 members answered the pontiff’s call — a striking shortfall that hinted at restlessness within the highest ranks of the Church.
Notably absent were heavyweight figures from both ends of the spectrum: the liberal Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna and the conservative Cardinal Willem Eijk of Utrecht. Distance and frailty also kept others away, from Indonesia’s Cardinal Ignatius Suharyo Hardjoatmodjo to Rome’s venerable Cardinal Francis Arinze.
A New Style Meets Old Skepticism
On the morning of 7 January, a steady stream of cardinals filed into the Paul VI Hall. Cardinal Stephen Chow Sau-yan of Hong Kong was among the first to register, voicing to The Catholic Herald his delight at being present: “It’s good to see His Holiness again.”
Further arrivals revealed cautious expectations. Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, described the agenda as “modest enough for one day and a half,” yet discussions quickly ranged far beyond the four proposed topics. “In the Church there are no reforms,” he said. “We think about our mission according to the times, but faithful to the roots.”
Cardinal Frank Leo of Toronto struck a more pastoral tone, hoping the consistory would focus on evangelization and the renewal of faith in local communities. When asked whether divisions plagued the College, he dismissed the notion: “I don’t think it is divided at all. Christ is always our focal point.”
Still, private remarks among several prelates, captured by The Catholic Herald, painted a picture of uncertainty. One French cardinal admitted, “We still don’t know what we will really be discussing.” An African counterpart voiced cautious anticipation: “That’s the question we’re going to ask… but I don’t know if we will get there yet.”
Between Synodality and Tradition
As the sessions got underway, Pope Leo imposed a strict press silence — cardinals were not to comment until proceedings concluded. This only heightened curiosity about what truly unfolded behind the walls of Santa Marta.
Post-consistory interviews later revealed quiet unease with the new “synodal” format. One conservative prelate called it incoherent: “This whole synodal style doesn’t make any sense to me.” Cardinal Gerhard Müller echoed the sentiment, remarking that the system “helps the Pope not as Bishop of Rome but as a diocesan bishop.”
Progressive voices differed sharply, applauding the rearranged seating around round tables as a “bright sign of genius” that fostered genuine dialogue. “It gives a physical sign of collegiality,” one said. But others found the process stifling. “It was very controlled,” a cardinal complained. “One even called it high school.”
Technical confusion compounded frustration. Several participants never received their group assignments by email. “It seemed things were kind of set up,” one senior cardinal observed, while another wryly joked, “If you don’t agree with the group, you haven’t listened enough.”
Divisions Over Legacy and Direction
Following the concelebrated Mass at St Peter’s Basilica on 8 January, the second day’s sessions brought deeper disagreements to the surface. Many cardinals described the “open interventions” — timed at just three minutes — as constraining rather than liberating. “We spoke for three hours,” sighed one. “But in the end, nobody took our opinion.” A conservative cleric went further, calling them “enforced interventions.”
The question of synodality surfaced repeatedly, exposing uncertainty about its scope. A senior African cardinal outlined the debate candidly: “Traditionally, a synod means bishops advising the Pope. Now, laypeople and priests have full voting rights. That’s a different level.” He described the process as “fluid” and still without clear definition, warning that “it could become a pressure group trying to push a particular line.”
The Liturgy Question
Although the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) never appeared formally on the agenda, its shadow loomed large. Several cardinals confided that a written paper by Cardinal Arthur Roche — described as “pretty negative concerning the TLM” — was distributed quietly at the end of the proceedings. Its understated delivery signaled that the Vatican’s trajectory on traditional liturgy might already be fixed.
Cardinal Giuseppe Versaldi’s comment to The Catholic Herald captured the prevailing hope for balance: “This Pope tries to create more unity… What matters is to keep firm the unique meaning of the liturgy.” Yet other voices feared the opposite — that unity was being achieved through managed consensus rather than authentic dialogue.
Looking Toward June
By the time the last cardinal departed St Peter’s Square, the mood was reflective, even somber. “The Church of Benedict doesn’t exist anymore,” Cardinal Müller told The Catholic Herald, framing the consistory as an inflection point rather than a conclusion.
Attention now turns to the follow-up consistory set for 27–28 June 2026. Many within the College expect liturgy and curial reform — long debated but never settled — to return to the center of discussion. Whether Pope Leo XIV can transform procedural consultation into genuine collegial renewal remains uncertain, but the days of quiet assent appear decisively over.
- Raju Hasukh with files from The Catholic Herald
Related Images:
