Holding the centre: the extraordinary consistory, synodality, and the unresolved legacy of Francis
On 7–8 January 2026, Pope Leo XIV convened an Extraordinary Consistory of the College of Cardinals in Rome. Outwardly restrained in tone and procedure, the gathering nonetheless constitutes the first decisive act of governance in Leo’s pontificate. It is neither a synod nor a conclave, neither legislative nor theatrical. Its significance lies instead in how the Pope has chosen to address a Church marked by doctrinal unease, liturgical tension, and continuing disagreement over the meaning and limits of synodality.
Across a wide range of Catholic commentary—traditionalist, conservative, and mainstream alike—there is broad agreement that this consistory is best understood not as an event aimed at immediate outcomes, but as a deliberate attempt to restore balance after a period of ecclesial volatility.¹
The extraordinary consistory as a mode of governance
Canonically, an extraordinary consistory is convened when matters of particular gravity require consultation with the wider College of Cardinals rather than reliance on the Roman Curia or a small advisory circle. It is consultative, not deliberative; authority remains entirely with the Pope.² What distinguishes this consistory is therefore not juridical novelty but intentional design.
Commentators from the Catholic Herald, National Catholic Register, and Italian ecclesial press have all noted that the structure—prayer, working groups, reports, and open interventions—marks a clear contrast with the more centralised governance patterns of the previous pontificate.³ The format signals a recovery of an older Catholic instinct: that the Pope governs best not by permanent process or managerial fiat, but by episodic, focused consultation with the Sacred College.
In this sense, the consistory functions as a re-anchoring of synodality within recognisably Catholic forms of episcopal counsel under Peter.
Continuity without capitulation
Since Leo XIV’s election, some voices—particularly among those most bruised by the Francis years—have pressed for swift reversals of controversial policies, especially concerning synodality and the traditional Roman Rite. Yet a wide spectrum of commentary has converged on the judgement that governing by negation would deepen rather than heal the Church’s wounds.⁴
Even commentators broadly sympathetic to Francis have acknowledged that Leo is subtly shifting the centre of gravity away from permanent synodal process and back toward authoritative discernment informed by counsel, rather than pressure.⁵
Why Evangelii gaudium and Praedicate evangelium matter
The choice of Evangelii gaudium and Praedicate evangelium as preparatory reading has been widely recognised as interpretive rather than incidental.
Evangelii gaudium articulates a strong missionary impulse, calling the Church away from clericalism and institutional self-reference toward outward proclamation. Praedicate evangelium attempts to reorder the Roman Curia to serve that impulse, reshaping dicasterial priorities and introducing new patterns of governance. Commentators across the spectrum have observed that one text supplies the vision, the other the machinery—and that it is precisely their interaction which has generated both hope and anxiety.⁶
Traditional Catholic critiques of Evangelii gaudium
From a traditional Catholic perspective, critiques of Evangelii gaudium have focused less on explicit doctrinal error than on emphasis and epistemology. Critics argue that the exhortation’s pastoral rhetoric risks obscuring the primacy of doctrine, giving the impression—however unintended—that praxis generates theological meaning rather than receiving it.⁷
Traditional commentators have also questioned the sharp rhetorical contrast between a “missionary Church” and a “self-referential Church,” warning that such language, if absolutised, can suggest that doctrinal clarity, sacramental discipline, and juridical order are obstacles to mission rather than its necessary foundations.⁸
In addition, the exhortation’s economic and social language has drawn sustained criticism for venturing into political judgement without the precision traditionally associated with papal social teaching.⁹
Traditional Catholic critiques of Praedicate evangelium
Criticism of Praedicate evangelium has been more juridical and ecclesiological. Canonists and traditional commentators have expressed concern that the constitution weakens the traditional linkage between Holy Orders and governance by permitting laypersons to lead dicasteries exercising genuine authority.¹⁰
Equally significant is the symbolic reordering of curial priorities, placing evangelisation structurally before the guardianship of doctrine. While defensible in missionary terms, critics argue that this inversion risks subordinating doctrinal clarity to pastoral strategy, rather than safeguarding doctrine as the condition for authentic evangelisation.¹¹
In a Church already unsettled by the abuse crisis and wider institutional distrust, such reforms have often been experienced not as renewal but as instability, intensifying anxieties about authority, accountability, and coherence.¹²
Synodality and the Latin Mass: the decisive tests
Across diverse commentary, two issues recur as decisive tests of Leo XIV’s pontificate: synodality and the traditional Latin Mass.
Synodality, in principle, is widely recognised as a legitimate means of consultation. In practice, however, it becomes destabilising when treated as a mechanism for doctrinal determination or as a substitute for episcopal authority. The German Synodal Way is repeatedly cited as a cautionary example of consultation detached from doctrinal limits.¹³
The Latin Mass, meanwhile, has emerged as a symbolic litmus test of ecclesial coherence. Reporting in both Italian and anglophone Catholic media suggests that many Cardinals view the issue not as nostalgia versus progress, but as a question of whether the Church can sustain liturgical plurality without coercion.¹⁴
Equilibrium rather than resolution
What the Cardinals were asked to do in Rome was not to adjudicate between rival papacies, nor to choose between Benedict XVI and Francis. They were asked to discern how truths that are genuinely Catholic can be held together without collapsing into slogans or being weaponised into factions.
Across the commentary spectrum, a shared intuition emerges: the Church does not need further acceleration, but equilibrium. Doctrine and mission, mercy and truth, authority and consultation are not competitors to be ranked, but realities to be held in disciplined tension.
If this extraordinary consistory bears fruit, it will not be because one camp has prevailed, but because the Church has recovered a mode of governance marked by ordered communion under Peter—patient, consultative, and anchored in the whole deposit of faith.
- Catholic Herald, “What to Expect from Pope Leo XIV’s Extraordinary Consistory,” January 2026.
- 1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 353 §1–2.
- National Catholic Register, Edward Pentin, “Pope Leo XIV’s First Extraordinary Consistory: What’s at Stake,” January 2026.
- Catholic World Report, analysis columns on post-Francis governance, December 2025–January 2026.
- America Magazine, “Why Pope Leo Is Convening the Cardinals,” January 2026.
- Catholic Herald; La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana, commentary on curial reform and evangelisation.
- AKA Catholic, “Evangelii Gaudium: A Distinct Kind of Document,” 2013.
- First Things, various essays on pastoral rhetoric and doctrinal clarity under Francis.
- Crisis Magazine, “The Controversy over Evangelii Gaudium,” 2013–2014.
- EWTN News, “Praedicate Evangelium Raises Canonical Questions, Analysts Say,” March 2022.
- Catholic World Report, “What You Might Have Missed in Praedicate Evangelium,” March 2022.
- The Tablet and Catholic World Report, contrasting reactions to curial reform, 2022–2024.
- National Catholic Register, coverage of the German Synodal Way, 2019–2025.
- Italian press summaries cited in Catholic Herald and Il Giornale, January 2026.
RELATED ARTICLES
Latest
- THE GOSPEL IS NOT AN ALIBI FOR BUREAUCRACYBishop Philip North contends that spiritual renewal is paramount for the Church of England, sidelining organisational reform. He defends diocesan administration despite concerns over rising costs and declining clergy and congregations. This editorial emphasises the need for both faithful evangelisation and responsible financial stewardship as interconnected necessities for the Church’s survival.
- Today’s Mass: November 2 All SoulsAll Souls’ Day is observed on 2 November, commemorating the faithful departed. The Church encourages prayers, alms, and Masses of Requiem to aid souls in need of cleansing from sins. Originating in the early Christian practices, it aims to provide spiritual support for the deceased, ensuring their journey towards eternal rest.
- DE PROFUNDIS: THE PRAYER THAT WILL NOT LEAVE THE DEAD BEHINDThe De Profundis serves as a profound prayer for the dying and the deceased, urging honesty in facing sin and reliance on Christ’s mercy. Through its historical context and traditions, it encourages ongoing remembrance of the departed within the family, emphasising the importance of intercession and maintaining a connection with faith.
- EVERY VOICE — EXCEPT THE OLD MASS?Pope Leo XIV has appointed Father Giacomo Costa and Sister Elena Massimi to oversee synodal implementation. Massimi’s prior support for Traditionis Custodes raises concerns about the Church’s authenticity in listening. As synodality takes a more central role in governance, it remains uncertain if traditional Catholics’ voices will be genuinely considered, questioning the credibility of the process.
- THE COUNCIL SAID PRESERVE IT. THEY TORE IT OUT.James Likoudis’s last defence of the liturgical reform highlights a disconnect between Vatican II’s true directives and the significant alterations that followed. The 1965 interim Mass illustrates that the Council’s goals could be achieved without the 1969–70 reconstruction. Official documents document the loss of sacred heritage and misuse of Vatican II’s intentions, raising questions about ecclesiastical responsibilities and the difference between true reform and the abandonment of tradition.
Leave a Reply