From the article that Ladislaus posted, this point seems highly problematic to me:

The mystery behind the white smoke and the secret post-election meeting of the 1958 Conclave may not have been uncovered if it were not for Mr. Scortesco.  Scortesco was the cousin of two members of the Vatican’s Noble Guard, including the President of the Noble Guard, which was responsible for guarding the conclaves of 1958 and 1963 and making sure that no communication occurred with the outside.  Scortesco revealed the following in a published letter:

Quote

Scortesco: “In the case of John XXIII (1958) and of Paul VI (1963), there were communications with the outside.  It was thus known that there were several ballots in the first conclave [1958] which resulted in the election of Cardinal Tedeschini and in the second [1963], Cardinal Siri.” (Excerpt from the French Newsletter, Introibo, No. 61, July-August-September, 1988, Association Noel Pinot, Angers, France, p. 3.)

The problem I have with this is that the cardinals are not allowed to communicate with the outside, and in fact are prisoners until the new pope is announced. So this guy Scortesco is claiming that his cousins (including the President of security) violated their most sacred duty to ensure the integrity of the papal election.

It's certainly possible for anyone to do any wicked act, but this seems really hard to believe. These people were Italian nobility, people of high ideals, who had promised to defend the pope. And obviously they would have been ready to give their life for him. To say that they would betray the papacy in this manner would be like saying the Secret Service would betray the president of this country. Such a thing has never happened in the history of this country. And the noble guard are motivated not just by a natural patriotism, but by a supernatural devotion to the vicar of Christ. The thought of them allowing the conclave to be violated just doesn't seem likely.

It's like the Swiss Guards, whom they work with as the pope's bodyguard. The Swiss Guards are ready to die for the pope. Just read what those guys did to protect Pius IX during the masonic invasion of Rome, and try to imagine any of them allowing people to come in and threaten to murder a newly elected pope. I realize that this is a century later, but these weren't modernist clergy, they were laypeople who had been little affected by modernism.

On top of all of that, if this guy really had been guilty of such a disgraceful treachery, why would he have told Scortesco about such a thing? That doesn't make any sense either.

The problem I have with this is that the cardinals are not allowed to communicate with the outside, and in fact are prisoners until the new pope is announced.

The Modernist masonic cardinals don't give 1 hooey about vows to God; their job is to infiltrate, conquer and control the papacy at all costs.  The masons were infiltrating the church probably 100 years before the 1950s (Pope Pius IX was imprisoned in the vatican, remember?).

So this guy Scortesco is claiming that his cousins (including the President of security) violated their most sacred duty to ensure the integrity of the papal election.

The italian nobles/security team don't take the papal election vows of secrecy that Cardinals do.  Secondly, these "whistleblowers" are actually defending the papacy by showing the corruption that happened during the 58 conclave.  Thirdly, these non-cardinals can only do so much to ensure the integrity of the conclave.  Their job is extremely focused - make sure non-cardinals don't get in/out.  No one can stop a conspiracy of cardinals, working together, with a planned way of communicating to the outside.  Up until that point in history, not only was such a thing unexpected but the technology didn't exist to monitor everyone at all times...especially if you didn't expect such masonic cardinals to be so bold.

It's certainly possible for anyone to do any wicked act, but this seems really hard to believe. These people were Italian nobility, people of high ideals, who had promised to defend the pope. And obviously they would have been ready to give their life for him. To say that they would betray the papacy in this manner would be like saying the Secret Service would betray the president of this country. Such a thing has never happened in the history of this country. And the noble guard are motivated not just by a natural patriotism, but by a supernatural devotion to the vicar of Christ. The thought of them allowing the conclave to be violated just doesn't seem likely.

You're assuming that ALLOWED the conclave to be violated.  Not only does charity assume the contrary, but common sense tells us that the enemy they were dealing with (i.e. masons) are a highly-prepared, powerful, and uniquely sophisticated.  I'm sure security did everything in their power to stop leaks, but the masons were 2-3 steps ahead of them.

It's like the Swiss Guards, whom they work with as the pope's bodyguard. The Swiss Guards are ready to die for the pope. Just read what those guys did to protect Pius IX during the masonic invasion of Rome, and try to imagine any of them allowing people to come in and threaten to murder a newly elected pope. I realize that this is a century later, but these weren't modernist clergy, they were laypeople who had been little affected by modernism.

The Swiss Guards aren't INSIDE the conclave.  Those who threatened Siri WERE THE MASONIC CARDINALS THEMSELVES (the French/German Cardinals were, are still, the most modernist).  The masonic cardinals threatened Siri before the conclave ended formally, because they knew Siri would abide by the vow of silence.

On top of all of that, if this guy really had been guilty of such a disgraceful treachery, why would he have told Scortesco about such a thing? That doesn't make any sense either.

How is it treachery to expose the infiltration of the papacy?    I don't follow your logic.

Pax, the cardinals are imprisoned in the conclave. The noble guard are their wardens. It is the job of the noble guard to prevent the cardinals from communicating with the outside or vice versa, just as much as it is the job of a regular prison warden to prevent prisoners from communicating with the outside of vice versa.

That's a horrible analogy.  The better analogy is where the US President meets in the oval office, and discuss classified docuмents while the secret service stands outside the doors, not knowing what's going on inside.  You can protect someone without being in the same room.  The noble guard are NOT inside the conclave.

That's a horrible analogy.  The better analogy is where the US President meets in the oval office, and discuss classified docuмents while the secret service stands outside the doors, not knowing what's going on inside.  You can protect someone without being in the same room.  The noble guard are NOT inside the conclave.

No, the Secret Service does not prevent the president from communicating with the outside. They are standing guard outside. On the other hand, the noble guard is responsible for preventing anyone from going into or out of the conclave, and also to prevent the cardinals from communicating with the outside.

The reason for this is precisely to prevent the sort of situation we are discussing with Siri, namely that some outside force threatened him to resign.

Yes, the noble guard are not privy to what happens in the conclave, that is correct.

The problem here is that Scortesco claims that the cardinals communicated with the outside during the conclave. The noble guard's job was to prevent this; evidently they didn't do their job, according to Scortesco.

Sure, it could have been that they could have gone in there with their plans already set in advance, and then simply activated them when Siri was elected, but that's not what is claimed.

The problem here is that Scortesco claims that the cardinals communicated with the outside during the conclave. The noble guard's job was to prevent this; evidently they didn't do their job, according to Scortesco.

Exactly.  The masons infiltrated the Cardinals but they can't infiltrate a security team?  It only takes 1 leak by 1 man.  1 cardinal passes notes to 1 security guard to communicate with the outside.  This kind of thing has been going on since the beginning of time.

So do you think the noble guard betrayed their trust to protect the conclave or didn't you?

Not the ones related to the guy were talking about.  Again, there only needs to be 1 leaker/mason out of 100 security men.  But there were likely far more.


You chastised the guys who were "whistleblowers", saying they should respect the papacy (implying they took some sort of vow of silence).  I was just saying that a "normal person's" reaction to finding fraud is to expose it.  And since the noble guard has seen the ill effects of the infiltration, they are speaking out.  They didn't take a vow of silence, so their reaction is normal and brave.

Yes, it would be brave to expose a security breach in their own security force, but I question why such a breach happened in the first place.

Ok, gotcha.  Well, breaches happen when infiltrators have enough people on their side.  If you read the book "the Rhine flows into the Tiber" the journalist who covered V2 docuмents how a small, well-organized collection of Cardinals (i.e 20-30%), who had infiltrators in key positions, were able to blind-side the orthodox cardinals with their bold liberalism to get "the votes" to approve the many heretical docuмents.


This journalist explains that there would be a draft docuмent voted on, which were very orthodox, but the next day, the head of the committee (the masons were head of the most important committees) that was responsible for the draft, came back with "updates" which were the quasi-heresies we know today.  The orthodox majority was given only a few hours to read/comprehend the "updates" before a vote was called.  Many times the orthodox cardinals objected and a re-draft was written that night (by the assistants of the committee heads, who were masons).  The next day, the orthodox cardinals had to re-read the entire (long-winded) docuмent and object the many quasi-heresies therein.  When the liberals removed 1 heresy, they inserted 3 more.  It was a never-ending game of legalism and lies.  Most V2 docuмents barely passed by a majority vote.  Not at all like all historical ecuмenical councils of the past.

So when you question why/how a breach happened, I think you woefully underestimate the enemy you're dealing with.  It would be akin to asking "How did the C1@ know I wrote this in an email?"  They know much, much more than you think.