Is a man a Pope first or a Religious first? I guess it really depends on that precedence of the two for a person in office. If the person is considered first and foremost Pope (which I think is the case), then the possible set of actions will first be filtered through the office. If not, the other way around.
The reason I say that a Pope is first and foremost Pope is because even a religious is waived from their obligation to obey his/her superior. That would only seem true if Pope comes first and religious second.
It’s neither. It’s both. The papacy is a ministry. It’s how you serve the Church.
The consecrated life is how you live the Gospel and how you project it to others.
You can certainly serve the Church without having to change how you live and project the Gospel.
Take St. Pius V. He was a Dominican Friar. Everything that he did was colored by this. For example, he never wore regal robes. He always wore the Dominican habit. That’s when the custom of popes wearing off-white with a shoulder cape began. The next pope and thereon forward,honored his memory by creating a cassock that mimics the Dominican tunic.
St. Celestine V was a Benedictine monk.
Nicholas IV was a Franciscan who never wore the tiara or the robes. He walked barefoot and in his habit.
Pius, Celestine, Nicholas and the many other popes who have been religious always brought the charism of their order to the papacy and projected it onto the universal Church. Pope Leo XIII was a Secular Franciscan. He wrote a letter to the bishops of the world suggesting to them that they promote the Secular Franciscan Order among the faithful, because it was a sure path to holiness.
John Paul II was an OCDS. He certainly promoted the contemplative life.
The one cannot take priority over the other, because they’re not comparable. If that were possible, it would be impossible for priests to become religious. We know that they do it all the time. About 40% of our priests are religious. Their ministry is guided by the charism of their life.
Two popes will do the same thing, but approach it very differently, because of how they live the Gospel. This pope uses an interesting combination. He uses the Exercises to discern, which is very Jesuit. He mimics St. Francis to execute, which is very Franciscan.
There is a continuity in doctrine, morals and law, but there is the newness of the religious tradition. We have never had a Jesuit influence at that level.
Many people don’t know how much the religious popes influenced the papacy and the Church at large.
Where did the idea of putting the tabernacle front and center come from?
Where did the Stations of the Cross come from?
Where did the veneration of the cross on Good Friday come from?
Where did the Christmas creche come from?
Where did the passion play at Palm Sunday mass come from or the Nativity Pageant at Christmas mass?
They were all creations of St. Francis of Assisi that Nicholas IV introduced to the universal Church.
Where did the Gregorian chant come from?
It was a Benedictine tradition that a Benedictine pope introduced to the universal Church.
How about the Tridentine form?
It was a simpler form used by Franciscans. The Council of Trent adopted it as the mass for the Church. But it was not until a Dominican pope came along and added some Dominican gestures and movements that we got the final form that we had until Pope Pius XII.
Avoidance and resistance of this man’s religious vocation is like pushing a boulder uphill. Unless he’s a very unfaithful Jesuit or there is a major conflict of interest, there is no reason why he can’t live and function as a Jesuit. We just have to learn to appreciate it. The is much to be learned from the Jesuits’ approach to theology, spirituality, ecclessiology and other things.
