Consistory of June 30: The Absences of Cardinals Zen, Erdő, and Eijk, a Signal Rome Cannot Ignore

Context

On June 30, 2026, Pope Leo XIV convened an extraordinary consistory. According to LifeSiteNews, Cardinals Joseph Zen Ze-kiun (emeritus of Hong Kong, 94 years old), Péter Erdő (Archbishop of Budapest), and Willem Eijk (Archbishop of Utrecht) announced their absence. Three cardinals from distinct theological traditions and geographical contexts—but united by a common attachment to the continuity of the magisterium. We had followed in this thread the growing tension around the FSSPX dossier and the canonical challenges surrounding July 1: this extraordinary consistory is now its direct horizon.

The Facts

None of the three has provided an official public statement justifying their absence. Cardinal Zen, a figure of Catholic resistance in Hong Kong, has repeatedly been in open conflict with the line adopted by Rome on the Sino-Vatican agreements since 2018. Péter Erdő, one of the most influential prelates in Central Europe, had expressed reservations during the synodal sessions on collegiality. Willem Eijk, Archbishop of Utrecht, had published an open letter to Pope Francis in 2018 recalling the duties of Peter’s successor regarding the teaching on divorced and remarried Catholics. The precise agenda of the June 30 consistory has not been made public, but the context—FSSPX dossier, synodal discussions, apostolic visits—gives these absences particular resonance.

Doctrinal Analysis

The Code of Canon Law (can. 353) defines an extraordinary consistory as a meeting of the College of Cardinals to address "matters of great importance." The simultaneous absence of several cardinals from such an assembly is, canonically, a rare and significant gesture. It does not constitute a formal rupture—none of the three has issued a declaration of non-communion. But ecclesial communion is not reduced to the absence of formal rupture. Leo XIV, in his apostolic exhortation Magnifica humanitas (2025, n. 14), had called for "unity in truth, not in ambiguity." The absence of these cardinals is precisely a reminder that this unity is not self-evident.

Stakes for the Church and the Faithful

For the faithful attached to the perennial magisterium, these absences signal that the internal fractures within the College of Cardinals remain real. An extraordinary consistory draws its symbolic and spiritual strength from the presence of the entire College around the successor of Peter. Three notable absences—of non-marginal cardinals—weaken this significance. In the context of the FSSPX dossier, they raise a question: will the June 30 consistory be an occasion for a united word, or for a decision made without the input of important voices?

Critical Reading and Blind Spots

It would be unwise to interpret these absences as an organized rebellion: none of the three cardinals has signed a joint declaration, and the reasons given (advanced age for Zen, schedules for the other two) may indeed be practical. The English-speaking Catholic press, fond of divisions, risks overinterpreting. What remains certain is that the symbolic plays a full role in the life of the Church, and that three presences would have sent a strong signal of unity.

To Reflect and Act Upon

"Strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered" (Zech 13:7). The unity of the College of Cardinals is not an end in itself, but it conditions the clarity of the Church’s witness to the world. Let us pray that the June 30 consistory may be an occasion for a firm and united word, regardless of the absences.