Roma Locuta Est

April 3, 2024 (Steven O’Reilly) – Recently, Matt Gaspers and Dr. Mazza debated on Restoring the Faith. By way of background, in February and March of 2024, Mr. Gaspers wrote a series of articles in Catholic Family News defending the validity of the resignation of Benedict XVI, and the validity of the election of Pope Francis. In his article series, Mr. Gaspers cited my book — Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI –– which defends the validity of Benedict’s resignation.  Apparently, Mr. Gasper’s articles prompted Dr. Mazza to challenge him to a debate on the validity of Benedict’s resignation.

Here, I‘d like to comment in this article on one portion of that debate in which Dr. Mazza made an ad hominem attack on me.  This ad hominem attack occurred in the debate after Mr. Gaspers cited my book, Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, and one my articles (see Lumen Gentium Destroys Benepapism in Toto) with regard to Lumen Gentium and its connection to the argument as to whether the latin words munus and ministerium are synonyms.  Mr. Gaspers comments on Lumen Gentium, referencing my article, beginning at circa 1:04:39 in the video.

I will summarize the Lumen Gentium argument below which is found in my book and my article (see Lumen Gentium Destroys Benepapism in Toto). After which, I will provide Dr. Mazza’s ad hominem statements, and my response to them.

Per Lumen Gentium (20), ‘a munus is a ministry’

We begin by looking at Lumen Gentium chapter III, which specifically takes up the question of the Hierarchical Structure of the Church in its very title. Thus, it seems like a good place to see whether and how ministerium and munus might relate to the question of the resignation, certainly in light of Canon 17 (see Br. Alexis Bugnolo’s Faulty Logic, and Faulty Comprehension with Respect to Canon 17 ), and in relation to the bishops, and the bishop of Rome.

Lumen Gentium (18) teaches that “Christ the Lord instituted in his Church a variety of ministries (ministeria)” and that “those ministers (ministri) are endowed with sacred power.” Then the text immediately proceeds to list more specifically — among these “variety of ministries” — what the Lord instituted, e.g., that the “successors of the apostles” should be the bishops, and that in Blessed Peter, set over the other apostles, and in his successors, should be the source of unity in the Church, and all that flows from that, e.g., the Petrine primacy, papal infallibility.  The implication should be evident, Lumen Gentium 18 teaches a “variety of ministries” were instituted by Christ the Lord, and these include the episcopate and the papacy. Thus, the papacy is one of a “variety of ministries,” instituted by Christ.  Thus we can speak of the Petrine ministry and papacy as being one and the same thing. 

Continuing on, Lumen Gentium (20) reads as follows (see Note 2 for the Latin text):

20. That divine mission, entrusted by Christ to the apostles, will last until the end of the world,(147) since the Gospel they are to teach is for all time the source of all life for the Church. And for this reason the apostles, appointed as rulers in this society, took care to appoint successors.

For they not only had helpers in their ministry, but also, in order that the mission assigned to them might continue after their death, they passed on to their immediate cooperators, as it were, in the form of a testament, the duty of confirming and finishing the work begun by themselves,(5*) recommending to them that they attend to the whole flock in which the Holy Spirit placed them to shepherd the Church of God. They therefore appointed such men, and gave them the order that, when they should have died, other approved men would take up their ministry. Among those various ministries which, according to tradition, were exercised in the Church from the earliest times, the chief place belongs to the office of those who, appointed to the episcopate, by a succession running from the beginning, are passers-on of the apostolic seed. Thus, as St. Irenaeus testifies, through those who were appointed bishops by the apostles, and through their successors down in our own time, the apostolic tradition is manifested and preserved.

Bishops, therefore, with their helpers, the priests and deacons, have taken up the service of the community, presiding in place of God over the flock, whose shepherds they are, as teachers for doctrine, priests for sacred worship, and ministers for governing. And just as the office granted individually to Peter, the first among the apostles, is permanent and is to be transmitted to his successors, so also the apostles’ office of nurturing the Church is permanent, and is to be exercised without interruption by the sacred order of bishops. Therefore, the Sacred Council teaches that bishops by divine institution have succeeded to the place of the apostles, as shepherds of the Church, and he who hears them, hears Christ, and he who rejects them, rejects Christ and Him who sent Christ.

(Source:  Lumen Gentium 20)

Now, the text above explicitly states here that:

“They therefore appointed such men, and gave them the order that, when they should have died, other approved men would take up their ministry (ministerium).  Among those various ministries (ministeria) which, according to tradition, were exercised in the Church from the earliest times, the chief place belongs to the office (munus) of those who, appointed to the episcopate.” 

As can be clearly seen, the text is explicitly teaching that among the “various ministries” is the “office (munus) of those” appointed to the episcopate, and of course as noted, the office of Peter as well is ‘among the ministries’ instituted by Christ (cf LG 18).  That is to say, given it is said a munus is among the various ministries, the text is, therefore, clearly stating ‘a munus is a ministry.’ Thus, because the munus is a ministry (ministerium), the ministry “entails” or “includes” the munus.

So, we see in Lumen Gentium 20 that a ‘munus is a ministry.’ In Lumen Gentium 18, we saw the papacy is one of a “variety of ministries,” instituted by Christ, and so we can speak of the Petrine ministry.  But note, Lumen Gentium 20 also goes on to speak of “the office (munus) granted (by the Lord) individually to Peter, the first among the apostles, is permanent and is to be transmitted to his successors.” So, among the “variety of ministries” instituted by Christ (cf LG 18), aside from the apostles and the office of their successors (cf LG 20); Christ also instituted the Petrine office (munus).  Thus, it is clear in the case of the papacy, the Petrine ministry/ministerium instituted by Christ logically entails the office/munus granted by the Lord to Peter, and which is “transmitted to his successors.”

The import should be clear to the reader at this point. Given the Petrine ministry logically entails the Petrine munus, then if one resigns the Petrine ministry (ministerium), one necessarily resigns the Petrine munus.[3]

Thus, in the words of the Declaratio, by renouncing the “ministry of the Bishop of Rome, Successor of St. Peter,” Benedict was necessarily renouncing the Petrine munus. The logic is inescapable. Thus, the resignation of Benedict XVI is valid. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Unfortunately, Dr. Mazza resorts to an ad hominem attack

Now, what is Dr. Mazza’s answer to this argument which appears in my book and article, and which has been circulating for two years?  Let’s now pick up the transcript from the Gaspers/Mazza debate where Mazza now begins his response to Mr. Gaspers mention of yours truly, and my book and article on Lumen Gentium  20, summarized by me above (emphasis added):

Mazza:  Oh, sure, Yeah. Thank you Matt. May I quote The Godfather?

Matt: Go right ahead.

Mazza: Matt, you’re you’re my brother and I love you. But never, never take sides with the CIA against the family again. Full disclosure, Steven O’Reilly, my comic book nemesis. You know, like Spiderman and the Green Goblin. Steven O’Reilly who wrote the book “Valid?” to discredit my Mazza positions here and others you know, people that maintain that Benedict is is probably still the Pope or was. Ah, he worked for the CIA. And ah I don’t know why in your article in February and in your article in March you chose to basically….the main ammunition that you used against my position is from the CIA. I mean if you wanna trust a three letter person, trust a PhD not the CIA. I mean, but you know, all kidding aside. Ah Let’s let’s take someone who again is not a CIA agent. How about Professor Anna Slowikowska? From a prominent university in Poland and she says here. “The knowledge of all the meanings of a given word, in this case munus. Is not enough to correctly identify the thoughts of the author of the translated text. The term munus Is most often analyzed in the literature with two others officium and ministerium. And she goes on to explain they are also synonymous with it, but at the same time, each of them can mean something different. Their use, whether separate or synonymous, always depends on the context of the utterance. The author’s intention to the purpose for which they are used.” So I will go with the good professor, Steven O’Reilly, good guy, but not he’s he’s off on the subject.”

[Source:  See Restoring the Faith Gaspers/Mazza debate; transcript picks up at c. 1:07:35.  The transcription is mine, based primarily on Word’s ‘dictate’ function]

Dr. Mazza’s reply is an ad hominem attack on yours truly, in which Dr. Mazza plainly states that “the main ammunition that you (Gaspers) used against my (Mazza’s) position is from the CIA.” This accusation that my book, its content, etc., are “from the CIA” in any size, shape, or form is absolutely not true. It is a lie. No ifs. No ands. No buts.  Good grief…taking sides with O’Reilly is taking “sides with the CIA?!”  Again.  Wrong.  A blatant disregard for the truth.  Dr. Mazza here employs the genetic fallacy. He is “poisoning the well.”

That Dr. Mazza lamely attempts to paper over his glaring, calumnious ad hominem by saying afterward that I am a “good guy” and “all kidding aside” won’t fly. His intent, meaning, and purpose is obvious and unavoidable in what he said, consequently these chummy afterthoughts amount to little more than closing the stable door only after having intentionally let the horse bolt.

Now, once again, for the record, I have spoken of my past — repeat past — employment with the CIA on my blog, and on book covers; and have again stated in other places that no one and or no organization and or group employs me, or directs me to write what I do. Neither I, nor my blog, or any writer for my blog receives any funding to write. I, alone, am responsible for what I write. I am beholden to no one, a message also repeated in the opening for all my videos (see O’Reilly YouTube Channel; e.g., listen to an opening HERE).

The fact I disagree with Dr. Mazza’s Benepapist claims, and come to different conclusions than he can hardly serve as a reasonable, good faith basis to claim or imply “the CIA” is the explanation for or source (“from the CIA“) of my opposition to his Benepapist claims! He can have no evidence for such a claim, because there is none to be had — because his accusation against me, my book, etc., is utterly false and without any merit. It is ludicrous. Dr. Mazza ought to be ashamed of himself.

For whatever reason or cause, there seems to be an inclination among certain arch-Benepapists to engage in ad hominem attacks on those who reject or offer rebuttals to their claims. It really does seem to be the dark side of this debate over the validity of Benedict’s resignation, where attacking the motives for some becomes more important than making a sound argument. While I have become accustomed to the outlandish ad hominem claims made by the likes of Estefania Acosta[4], Alexis Bugnolo[5], and Ann Barnhardt[6] — it was disappointing to see Dr. Mazza[7] go over to this “dark side” by joining this club.

However, as the reasonable, fair-minded reader well recognizes and understands; ad hominem attacks are never a sign of a winning argument. “If you’re ‘ad hominem-ing,’ you’re not winning.” Truth does not need a crutch; it can walk on its own. Consequently, I certainly take this recent incoming ad hominem attack on me — like the others before it — as a sign that I am “over the target.”  Fire for effect.

Okay, but what about Dr. Slowikowska and the Munus/Ministerium?

As we saw above, Dr. Mazza attempts to deflect the argument based on Lumen Gentium by use of the ad hominem. Having addressed that, let’s take a look at what substance Dr. Mazza does try to offer in rebuttal to my argument. Dr. Mazza cites a scholar, Dr. Anna Slowikowska. Dr. Mazza cites her above, and to similar effect in his book as follows (emphasis added):

“The knowledge of all the meanings of a given word–in this case munus–is not enough to correctly identify the thoughts of the author of the translated text.

The term munus is most often analyzed in the literature with two others: officium and ministerium. They are also synonymous with it. But at the same time each one of them can mean something different. Their use, whether separate or synonymous, always depends on the context of the utterance, the author’s intention, or the purpose for which they are used.” (Mazza citing Anna Slowikowska on page 55 of Mazza’s book, “The Third Secret of Fatima & the Synodal Church, vol. 1 Pope Benedict’s Resignation“)

As Matt Gaspers argued in his debate, and as is also argued in my book, and in the articles of others (Ryan Grant, Fr. John Rickert), ministerio (ministerium) and munus are synonyms (cf. Lewis & Short)[8]. It is not even a question. Even Dr. Slowikowska admits this, “they are also synonymous with it.”

Yes, Slowikowska also says they “can mean something different” — but that is something I do not wish to deny! The point Dr. Mazza really fails to grasp, even in a quote of his choosing, is that Slowikowska confirms that the meaning depends on “the context of the utterance,” the “author’s intention,” or “the purpose for which they are used.”  There is no inscrutable mystery here!

Yet, aside from bringing these three ‘tests’ or ‘guides’ to our attention, Dr. Mazza does not explain why these separate guides do not point to the synonymy of munus/ministerium in the case of the Declaratio. It seems Dr. Mazza is muddying the waters.  For my part, I embrace Dr. Slowikoska’s ‘tests’ or ‘guides’ as making perfect sense — indeed, it’s just common sense. Indeed, I argue that looking at all three of these guides — “context of the utterance”, “author’s intention”, “the purpose for which they are used” — will lead us to conclude Benedict validly resigned the papacy.  Consider the following.

First, Benedict said, in the Declaratio, he resigned the “ministry (ministerio) of the Bishop of Rome” in such as way that the “See of Rome, the See of Peter” would be “vacant” and that a conclave would need to be called to elect a new pope.  What more can one ask for in terms of Slowikowska’s context, intention, and purpose?  There is no required, canonical formula for a papal resignation, or requirement the literal word munus be used.  But Benedict said he was resigning the ministerium “in such a way” that the “See of Rome, the See of Peter” is vacant, and a conclave needs to be called. The meaning is evident to anyone with common sense. There is no pope!

Benedict is clearly resigning the papacy — his office. So, in the context of the Declaratio, e.g., Benedict no longer having strength to adequately fulfill his munus/ministerium, and declaration the see is vacant, it is abundantly clear from the context that his intention, and purpose is to resign the papacy.

Second, we recall an exchange of articles between Fr. John Rickert and Dr. Mazza. In this exchange Dr. Mazza ignored Fr. Rickert’s rejoinder[9] to Dr. Mazza’s reply — and though he mentions Fr. Rickert in his book, Dr. Mazza does not address the argument in that rejoinder. In this reply — after which Dr. Mazza vanished from the discussion — Fr. Rickert had noted, and provided documentary evidence, that the title of the Declaratio in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (AAS) in Latin is as follows (bold added):

“Declaratio Summi Pontificis: De Muneris Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri Abdicatione“

Note the inclusion of munus in the title. This title may be translated: “Declaration of the Supreme Pontiff on the abdication of the office (munus) of the Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter.”

Given the title in the AAS says the subject of the document’s text deals with the abdication “of the office (munus) of the Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter” then it is clear the text below it (i.e., the Declaratio), which speaks of the resignation of the ministerium, must be interpreted as synonymous with that title. The AAS necessarily means ministerium and munus are being used synonymously. That is the obvious conclusion! What more can one ask for in terms of Slowikowska’s context, intention, and purpose?!!  

Third, earlier, we looked at a part of Lumen Gentium chapter III (section 20). Chapter III is entitled “ON THE HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE OF THE CHURCH AND IN PARTICULAR ON THE EPISCOPATE.” Thus, we might expect to find some important commentary bearing on the munus and ministerium of the bishops and the pope – something Canon 17 even suggests we do (see HERE).

We saw earlier in Lumen Gentium 20 that a ‘munus is a ministry.’  In Lumen Gentium 18, we see the papacy is one of a “variety of ministries,” instituted by Christ, and so we can speak of the Petrine ministry.  But note, Lumen Gentium 20 also goes on to speak of “the office (munus) granted (by the Lord) individually to Peter, the first among the apostles, is permanent and is to be transmitted to his successors.” So, among the “variety of ministries” instituted by Christ (cf LG 18), aside from the apostles and the office of their successors (cf LG 20); Christ also instituted the Petrine office (munus).

But still, we are speaking of one and the same event, whether of the Lord “instituting” the Petrine ministry/ministerium among a “variety of ministries”, or the Lord “granting” the Petrine office/munus to Peter. It is clear in the case of the papacy, the Petrine ministry/ministerium instituted by Christ logically entails the office/munus granted by the Lord to Peter, and which is “transmitted to his successors.”

The import should be clear to the reader at this point. Given the Petrine ministry logically entails the Petrine munus, then if one resigns the Petrine ministry, one necessarily resigns the Petrine munus.[11]  Thus, in the words of the Declaratio, by renouncing the “ministry of the Bishop of Rome, Successor of St. Peter,” Benedict was necessarily renouncing the Petrine munus. The logic is inescapable. What more can one ask for in terms of Slowikowska’s context, intention, and purpose?

Fourth, the structure of Benedict’s Declaratio, and its inclusion in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis , demonstrates the “context”, “intent”, and “purpose”.  That is to say, the context of the Declaratio, in which Benedict speaks of being too weak to carry on the munus/ministerium is clear. Benedict XVI clearly had in mind the only two requirements for a valid resignation found in Canon 332§2 [ see note 10]. He demonstrated he was fulfilling the requirements of Canon 332§2 on papal resignations by (1) declaring he was acting in full freedom, and (2) duly manifesting the resignation by reading it before the cardinals in a consistory, and including it in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, the official record of the Apostolic See, under the aforementioned title (“Declaration of the Supreme Pontiff on the abdication of the office (munus) of the Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter”).  In brief, there is no canon for a papal resignation other than of the papacy itself (i.e., Canon 332§2). That was clearly Benedict’s intent — to resign the papacy, and not something short of that for which there is no canon. And again, the context, intent, and purpose is clear, in light of the synonymy of ministerium/munus, especially in light of the title in the AAS.

Fifth, reductio absurdum. Dr. Mazza’s theory regarding the munus really only leads to an absurd conclusion. Dr. Mazza wants the reader to believe that Benedict XVI held an erroneous conception of the munus, i.e., that there was a sacramental component to it which could not be given up (for example, see Dr. Mazza’s comments, and my response in an article exchange on the WMBRIGGS site)! However, if this were so, then this would directly imply something quite absurd: Benedict XVI could never resign the papacy validly even if he had explicitly renounced the munus in the Declaratio!! In that hypothetical situation, and based on his theory of the case, it would appear that Dr. Mazza could not assure us Benedict was free from “substantial error” even if he had explicitly renounced the munus in the Declaratio!

Final Thoughts

In examining a portion of the Gasper/Mazza debate, we saw what Dr. Mazza did when confronted with an argument he, for whatever reason, has not specifically addressed over the last couple of years. He resorted to an ad hominem attack. It is plain to any fair-minded person.

Only after that, did Dr. Mazza appeal to Dr. Slowikowska as a ‘three-lettered’ authority. Yes, Dr. Mazza brings Slowikowska’s ‘tests’ or ‘guides’ to our attention, but these are really common sense. But without going further, he really only muddies the waters. That is to say, Dr. Mazza does not explain why and how these guides do not point to the synonymy of munus/ministerium in the case of the Declaratio, as I and others have argued. He does not apply this methodology to try to show how this refutes the argument offered above with regard to Lumen Gentium. As such, Dr. Mazza, as said, is only muddying the waters.

The quote from Slowikowska which Dr. Mazza enters into evidence provides some ‘guides’ to help determine the meaning of the words (munus/ministerium/officium), i.e., “the context of the utterance,” the “author’s intention,” or “the purpose for which they are used.”  In this article, I offered several, specific examples applying this ‘methodology’ to the Declaratio, the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, Lumen Gentium, and Canon 332§2 with respect to the structure of the Declaratio. Considering the context, intention, and purpose in these documents, I demonstrated how these lead to the conclusion the resignation of Benedict XVI was valid. The onus is on Dr. Mazza to refute these arguments. Ad hominems won’t cut it.

As stated earlier, ad hominem attacks are never a sign of a winning argument. Indeed they are a sign of desperation, as well as the weakness of the arguments which are the foundation of Benepapism. I am over the target, and will keep on ‘firing for effect.’ Fair-minded Benepapists interested in arguments that might test or challenge their views on the validity of Benedict’s resignation can check out various resources, such as free articles on this blog (see compilation, The Case against those who claim “Benedict is (still) pope”), my book (Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI) available in paperback, Kindle and audiobook; as well as a series of videos (see O’Reilly YouTube Channel).

Steven O’Reilly is a graduate of the University of Dallas and the Georgia Institute of Technology. A former intelligence officer, he and his wife, Margaret, live near Atlanta. He has written apologetic articles, and is author of Book I of the Pia Fidelis trilogy, The Two Kingdoms; and of Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. (Follow on twitter at @fidelispia for updates). He asks for your prayers for his intentions.  He can be contacted at StevenOReilly@AOL.com  or StevenOReilly@ProtonMail.com (or follow on Twitter: @S_OReilly_USA or on GETTR, TruthSocial, or Gab: @StevenOReilly).

Notes

[1] The following argument was developed based directly on Fr. John Rickert FSSP making this salient point about the  meaning of munus relative to ministry within Lumen Gentium 20.  Fr. Rickert had pointed me to this important text in personal correspondence.

[2] Latin Text of Lumen Gentium 20:

Missio illa divina, a Christo Apostolis concredita, ad finem saeculi erit duratura (cf. Mt 28,20), cum Evangelium, ab eis tradendum, sit in omne tempus pro Ecclesia totius vitae principium. Quapropter Apostoli, in hac societate hierarchice ordinata, de instituendis successoribus curam egerunt.

Non solum enim varios adiutores in ministerio habuerunt(40), sed ut missio ipsis concredita post eorum mortem continuaretur, cooperatoribus suis immediatis, quasi per modum testamenti, demandaverunt munus perficiendi et confirmandi opus ab ipsis inceptum(41), commendantes illis ut attenderent universo gregi, in quo Spiritus Sanctus eos posuit pascere Ecclesiam Dei (cf. Act 20, 28). Constituerunt itaque huius modi viros ac deinceps ordinationem dederunt, ut cum decessissent, ministerium eorum alii viri probati exciperent(42). Inter varia illa ministeria quae inde a primis temporibus in Ecclesia exercentur, teste traditione, praecipuum locum tenet munus illorum qui, in episcopatum constituti, per successionem ab initio decurrentem(43), apostolici seminis traduces habent(44). Ita, ut testatur S. Irenaeus, per eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi et successores eorum usque ad nos, traditio apostolica in toto mundo manifestatur(45) et custoditur(46).

Episcopi igitur communitatis ministerium cum adiutoribus preshyteris et diaconis susceperunt(47), loco Dei praesidentes gregi(48), cuius sunt pastores, ut doctrinae magistri, sacri cultus sacerdotes, gubernationis ministri(49). Sicut autem permanet munus a Domino singulariter Petro, primo Apostolorum, concessum et successoribus eius transmittendum, ita permanet munus Apostolorum pascendi Ecclesiam, ab ordine sacrato Episcoporum iugiter exercendum(50). Proinde docet Sacra Synodus Episcopos ex divina institutione in locum Apostolorum successisse(51), tamquam Ecclesiae pastores, quos qui audit, Christum audit, qui vero spernit, Christum spernit et Eum qui Christum misit (cf. Lc 10,16)(52).

(Source: Lumen Gentium 20)

[3] This observation is based directly on Fr. John Rickert FSSP making this salient point about the  meaning of munus relative to ministry within Lumen Gentium 20.  Fr. Rickert had pointed me to this important text in personal correspondence.  My many thanks to him.

[4]   “…He MUST be discredited and ultimately ignored, for the sake of the common good of the Church, the truth and true catholics (which he is not, obviously)…this man has to be exposed for what he is: an infiltrated destroyer of the truth about the current crisis of the Papacy.”

[5] Following my appearance on the Eric Sammons podcast, another Alexis Bugnolo wrote this piece of nonsense:  “REFUTING THE SERIAL LIAR EX-CIA AGENT, STEVEN O’REILLY, AGAIN.”

[6] In this article, I cite one of Ann Barnhardt’s ad hominems: Deconstructing Ann Barnhardt’s Benedict Video

[7] Aside from the “CIA” ad hominem against me; Dr. Mazza in an appearance on the Timothy Gordon show, answered an argument by John Salza — not present on the show; referring to Mr. Salza as a “former freemason John Salza” (see Timothy Gordon show; c. 43:05).  Now, this is something of an ad hominem as well, as it attacks the person on something that is not relevant to the discussion. There was no need to refer to him as  “former freemason.”

[8]   Rickert, Fr. John, FSSP, Ph.D., “Munus, Ministerium & Pope Emeritus Benedict — Guest Post by Fr John Rickert”, William M. Briggs, April 20, 2022. https://www.wmbriggs.com/post/39718/

[9] Rickert, Fr. John, FSSP, Ph.D., “Follow The Munus! Why Benedict Is [Likely] Pope — Guest Post by Edmund J. Mazza; Rejoinder by Fr John Rickert”, William M. Briggs, April 26, 2022. https://www.wmbriggs.com/post/39752/ ;

[10] Canon 332§2: “If it should happen that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office [munus], it is required for validity that he makes the resignation freely and that it be duly manifested, but not that it be accepted by anyone. (source: Coriden, James A., et al, eds. The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, p. 437.)

[11] Again, this observation is based directly on Fr. John Rickert FSSP making this salient point about the  meaning of munus relative to ministry within Lumen Gentium 20.  Fr. Rickert had pointed me to this important text in personal correspondence.  My many thanks to him.