Falsification of the Fatima Rosary Prayer Mirrored the Descent into Modernism of the Entire Fatima Message. The Fake Sister Lucy, the False Fatima Rosary Prayer, and the Falsified Fatima Message All Went Together. See the New Article by a Brazilian Author and Researcher Below.

 

Article on the Rosary Prayer by Brazilian author Yuri Maria

Lead All Souls to Heaven? – The Heretical Version of Our Lady of Fatima’s Prayer

“In Portugal, the Dogma of the Faith Will Always Be Preserved” – Our Lady of Fatima

Author: Yuri Maria
Translation: Mateus Larsan

Introduction

In this article we raise our voice against a most serious deception, which for decades has been imposed upon the Portuguese-Brazilian people: the distortion of Our Lady of Fatima’s prayer, adulterated and persistently spread by the modernists of the Novus Ordo. This is a matter of the utmost importance, for the very Mother of God asked us to pray the true prayer at the end of the Holy Rosary. Yet instead, a carefully crafted lie was promoted so that the faithful, en masse, would repeat a corrupted formula inspired by the theological error of Von Balthasar, who maintains—contrary to Tradition and the Faith—that even the condemned souls of hell could be saved at the end of time.

It is time to wake up! We cannot allow this heresy to take root on the lips of Catholics. To pray the adulterated prayer is to give voice to error and to be complicit with a doctrine that strikes at the very justice of God.

May the Holy Spirit enlighten your mind, strengthen your faith, and grant you the grace to discern truth from deception. Let us wield the Rosary as a sure weapon against the lie. Share this article, denounce the falsification, and let us pray together that the Fatima prayer may be restored to its original purity, crushing once and for all the serpent of heresy.

The first prayer approved by the Patriarch of Portugal

But after all, what was the true prayer taught by Our Lady to the three little shepherds in Fatima? After much investigation, sifting through articles, books, and even old newspapers, we found the clear and undeniable answer. This is not a matter of opinion, but a precious testimony recorded in a rare book: The Great Phenomena of the Cova da Iria and the History of the First Image of Our Lady of Fatima, by

Father Gilberto F. Santos, priest and eyewitness to the events.

In the first edition of this work, on page 85, the true aspiration prayer is recorded—the very one that came from the lips of the Most Holy Virgin and was prayed by the little shepherds in filial obedience. We now read the faithful echo of what was truly transmitted to them:

— “During the days she stayed in our home, we prayed the Rosary in front of a little oratory that my parents had, which also contained a small image of Our Lady of Fatima; and always, in the interval between the mysteries of the Rosary, Lucia prayed the following aspiration prayer:

‘O my Jesus, forgive us, save us from the fire of hell, relieve the souls in Purgatory, especially the most abandoned.’

— This is the aspiration prayer that Lucia said had been taught to them by Our Lady, at the time of the Apparitions.

— It was also in this very form that Father Dr. Manuel Nunes Formigão (then priest and professor at the Seminary and at the Lyceum of Santarém) heard it from Lucia, and of which he made the proper notation.

It was always in this very form that the three seers prayed publicly at the Cova da Iria, and this aspiration prayer received the approval of the Ecclesiastical Authority of the Patriarchate of Lisbon and the Diocese of Leiria; afterward it was prayed by all the priests and by all the faithful who came to know it.

 

 

Figura 2: Figura 2: On page 85 of the same book, the aspiration prayer taught by Our Lady

of Fatima is highlighted. [See Red Box]

This is the one authentic version of the prayer, approved by the Patriarch of Lisbon—the highest spiritual authority of the Portuguese people. Let us not forget: the Patriarch’s approval is not restricted to a single diocese, but resounds throughout the entire Lusitanity, the ones chosen to be heralds of the Message of Fatima. The approval of the Bishop of Leiria, though legitimate, had value only within the limits of his diocese.

Thus, it is clear and undeniable: the prayer that must echo on the lips of all Catholic people, heirs of the Land of the Holy Cross—that is, Brazil—is the version taught by Our Lady and confirmed by the Patriarch of Lisbon. This is the standard of faith, the banner of Marian orthodoxy that we cannot abandon.

The second approved prayer

Here is where the confusion begins: Another formula, a later version, was also approved, but only by the Bishop of the Diocese of Leiria. Therefore, it was not a universal approval for all the Portuguese people but a local and limited permission. It was this later, second version that spread and ended up becoming the most commonly used in Portugal, overshadowing the original taught by Our Lady.

On the following page of the same book, the author—Reverend Father Gilberto, eyewitness and zealous guardian of the truth—records this decisive fact, showing how the introduction of this alteration took place, which would later be modified by the Novus Ordo to spread confusion among the faithful:

NOTE:

It seems that there was a modification or some other fact of which I am unaware, since later the aspiration prayer also came to be said in the following form:

“O my Jesus, forgive us, save us from the fires of hell; lead all little souls to Heaven, especially those who are in most need.”

This aspiration prayer also received the approval of the Bishop of Leiria, so that both aspiration prayers were approved by Ecclesiastical Authority.

 

It must be made very clear: in Portugal, and only in Portugal, the word “little souls” (alminhas) has a particular meaning, referring to the souls in Purgatory. It is a pious regionalism, but restricted to Portuguese usage. For that reason, this version of the prayer, though not heretical in itself, could only be legitimately used within the Portuguese context—or, to speak with canonical precision, only by the faithful belonging to the Diocese of Leiria, for it was there, and only there, that it received episcopal approval.

By contrast, the first version—the true one, taught by Our Lady and confirmed by the Patriarch of Lisbon—goes beyond the local scope and extends to the entire Lusitanian Catholic people. And, by natural and historical consequence, it should also be the only prayer recited by the people of the Land of the Holy Cross—Brazilians—direct heirs of the same faith and the same tradition. Brazilians cannot be seen as separated from their Lusitanian roots. The so-called independence of Brazil, from a Catholic and spiritual point of view, was null and void: there was no rupture of the faith, nor of submission to the Apostolic See, nor of the heritage received from Portugal. We are, then, the same Christendom, the same spiritual Homeland, united by the Rosary, by the Mass, and by devotion to the Most Holy Virgin of Fatima.

For this reason, it is evident that the prayer taught by Our Lady and approved by the Patriarch of Lisbon does not belong only to the Portuguese overseas, but must be prayed with fidelity and fervor also by the Land of the Holy Cross’s people. To deny this is to amputate our roots, to break with the spiritual inheritance transmitted to us at the price of blood, of the Cross, and of the sword.

The Emergence of the Third Prayer

We now arrive at the third prayer—the one most widespread, translated, and imposed upon the entire world. Few realize it, but the Fatima devotion only began to gain international prominence at the end of the pontificate of Pope Pius XII, reaching its height under Paul VI—Montini, the first to visit the site—and its consolidation during the times of the heretical actor John Paul II—Wojtyla, without doubt the greatest subverter of Fatima. It was precisely at this moment of greatest expansion, when the message of Fatima was beginning to burn in the hearts of all peoples and in every language, that the agents of modernism had already taken the lead, infiltrating the city of Fatima, Portuguese Catholic newspapers, and above all the diocese itself.

It was a true anti-Fatima conspiracy, woven since John XXIII, who, when faced with the terrible content of the Third Secret, decided to hide it from the world, preventing it from being revealed. In this corrupted setting, where the Society of Jesus was already deeply infiltrated, the final adulteration arose.

What seems clear is that a false or transformed Sister Lucy helped propagate the heretical prayer, published in the newspaper Folha Mineira, edition 4137, December 24, 1960; 

Transcription: Taking advantage of the very rare opportunity to converse with someone to whom the Holy Virgin had spoken so much, I added:

— “Sister Lucy, I noticed that in Fatima the prayer which Our Lady requested as the conclusion of each Mystery of the Rosary is recited, making reference to the souls in purgatory, especially the most abandoned; in this way we pray it, back in the distant region of the Araguaia.”

And she, in a tone as if revealing a mistake—or, if you will, a slip—but with an intonation of voice where charity reigned, said, gently yet firmly:

— “They wanted it that way, but that was not the formula that Our Lady taught. Our Lady said it in this way:” (and she repeated the formula from the lips of the Holy Virgin Mary, on that June 13, 1917, at the Cova da Iria).

I asked her to allow me to copy it exactly, and she did so with the same simplicity that she showed in everything.

This was the formula dictated by Our Lady:

“O my Jesus, forgive us, save us from the fires of hell, lead all souls to heaven, especially those in most need”

 

Even though we already see the adulterated version in 1960, it began to be popularly “officialized” thanks to the journalist and his words: “Sister Lucy reveals a mistake … as a slip … this is the true one.”

However, it was only in the year 1977, in the Voz da Fátima newspaper—by then already dominated by modernism and under the direction of Father Luciano Guerra—that the heretical version of the suspect Sister Lucia was more widely spread in print to the Catholic world. There, in a surreptitious manner, they presented as if authentic the adulterated formula, written in the newspaper by the modernist Jesuit Father Fernando Leite Castro Meireles:

“On July 13: ‘I want you to continue praying the rosary every day, in honor of Our Lady of the Rosary, to obtain peace for the world and the end of the war, because only She can help you. When you pray the rosary, say after each mystery: “O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, lead all souls to heaven, especially those in most need”

Figura 3: Description: page from an edition of the newspaper Voz da Fátima, where the modernist Jesuit Fernando Leite gave publicity to the adulterated version of the Fatima prayer.

This was the moment when the lie was most forcefully cast upon the whole world, obscuring the purity of the Fatima prayer and subtly introducing, between the lines, the Balthasarian error of false universal hope.

It was not only in the Voz da Fátima newspaper that the adulterated version gained traction. An all-out campaign of war was waged. Various books and writings of the Jesuit Fernando Leite were published with the same purpose: to consolidate and disseminate the corrupted prayer. This priest became, in practice, the chief architect of the falsification, striving zealously so that the heretical version might be accepted as if it were the authentic one.

With unprecedented translations into various languages, his tireless work spread the error beyond Portugal, causing the adulterated prayer to penetrate the devotions of other peoples and nations. Thus, what began as a local deviation, the fruit of a modernist conspiracy, was transformed into a universal fraud, consolidated through the meticulous work of this man who, instead of safeguarding Tradition, devoted himself to undermining it from within.

An Impostor Sister Lucy?

To carry out such a great deception, the Novus Ordo relied on a key figure: the so-called “Sister Lucy,” who began to be presented to the world after 1958. However, strong evidence suggests that this was no longer the true Fatima seer. We are closely following the articles of Dr. Peter E. Chojnowski on the Sister Lucy Truth website, where—with robust documentation and serious scientific analyses—the increasingly solid hypothesis is raised that the authentic Sister Lucia was replaced by an impostor.

Dr. Chojnowski states:

“The Sister Lucy Truth site began in 2017 as an effort to discover the truth about the life and person of Sister Lucia dos Santos of Fatima, specifically through the scientific and expert analysis of the various aspects of Sister Lucia. Photographic evidence available on the internet, in reliable biographies, as well as handwritten samples, were collected and submitted for analysis in order to determine whether the true Sister Lucia of Fatima was or was not replaced by an impostor in the years after 1958.

From 2018 to 2022, Sister Lucy Truth hired a wide range of scientific professionals and medical experts and has now compiled a sufficient number of expert reports to conclude that there were, in fact, two women: one, the authentic Sister Lucia, who was the Seer at Fatima in 1917, and the other, an impostor who presented herself as the true Sister Lucia of Fatima at least from May 13, 1967, until her death on February 13, 2005.

As we commission more reports, we will use the information already compiled to discover what happened to the true Sister Lucia of Fatima and to identify the impostor.”

 

If these conclusions are correct—and all evidence points in that direction—then the impostor, manipulated by the modernists, became an instrument for legitimizing the adulterated version of the prayer, leading millions of faithful astray throughout the world.

In any case, whether or not it was the true Sister Lucy, such a prayer never had ecclesiastical approval.

The Heralds of the Subverted Prayer

Let us now turn to identify one of the principal architects of this spiritual fraud: Father Fernando Leite, S.J., the true figure responsible for the wide dissemination of the adulterated prayer. It was he who, with tireless effort and modernist obstinacy, dedicated his pen and his voice to consolidating the false version among the faithful.

According to his own biography, let us see who this man was and how he placed himself—whether consciously or not—at the service of deforming the Message of Fatima.

The Jesuit Fernando Leite Castro Meireles was born on February 25, 1920, in São Nicolau de Basto, Cabeceiras de Basto. He entered the Society of Jesus on September 7, 1937, and was ordained a priest on July 15, 1951, in Turin, Italy. From then on, he dedicated his entire life to the so-called “Apostolate of Prayer,” where he came to exercise notable influence.

For more than half a century, he held the directorship of the Cruzada Eucarística magazine and the Clarim bulletin. He wrote numerous books and pamphlets on Fatima, as well as biographies of the little shepherds and even two works praising John Paul II. His tireless pen, however, did not serve to preserve the purity of the Fatima Message, but rather to consolidate the adulterated version of the prayer, until it became common practice among the faithful.

The official Novus Ordo Fatima website itself exalted him as “one of the most important scholars of the Message.” Yet it is precisely here that the gravity lies: it was this Jesuit priest who, with obstinacy, fixed the heretical prayer within the very Sanctuary of Fatima and in its official publications, especially in the Voz da Fátima newspaper. It was from this modernist platform that the heretical version gained weight, cloaked in apparent legitimacy, and spread as though it were authentic.

On December 2, 2009, Fernando Leite died, leaving behind him a vast literary and devotional legacy. But the inheritance that weighs on his memory is even deeper: he was one of the chief figures responsible for giving voice and authority to the corrupted prayer, turning it into a standard and deceiving multitudes of well-intentioned Catholics. His name, far from being celebrated, ought to be remembered as one of the great laborers of modernism at Fatima—the one who, under the guise of devotion, worked to cover up the truth of the Most Holy Virgin’s Message.

We know that the Jesuit Father Fernando Leite was not alone in this work of distortion. He was the intellectual who produced the adulterated version of the prayer in several languages, but he relied on the strong arm and institutional platform of another central figure: Father Luciano Guerra, editor of Voz da Fátima and later rector of the Sanctuary.

Born in 1932, educated in Rome and Salamanca, he soon stood out as a priest tied to the modernist intellectual elite. In 1973, he assumed the rectorship of the Sanctuary of Fatima, a position he held until 2008, promoting a deep administrative and architectural restructure. Under his direction, Fatima was transformed into an increasingly de-characterized space, with the construction of the Paul VI Pastoral Center and the Basilica of the Most Holy Trinity—grandiose works, yet impregnated with modernism and far removed from the simple and penitential spirit of the Virgin’s Message. He was also responsible for introducing contemporary art into sacred spaces—works that confuse more than edify—and for redefining the statutes of the Sanctuary in juridical terms, aligning it with the modernist structures of Rome.

In addition, he accumulated positions of power and prestige: he was a papal chaplain, professor, president of internal commissions, and above all, director of the Voz da Fátima newspaper, from which the heretical adulteration of the prayer emerged in 1977 and was thereafter spread throughout the world. He was celebrated and decorated by local politicians and by the trusted men of the conciliar Vatican, among them “Cardinal” Tarcisio Bertone, one of the chief architects of the cover-up of the True Third Secret and the creator of its false version.

Thus, the biography of Luciano Guerra reveals not a “devout pastor of Fatima,” as conciliarist propaganda would have us believe, but rather a modernist administrator who placed the Sanctuary at the service of conciliar aggiornamento, turning it into a stage for monumental works, profane art, and the diffusion of errors. Under his directorship, Fatima was used to legitimize the falsification of the prayer and to progressively erase the prophetic and penitential character of the Message.

And the greatest promoter of the so-called “message of Fatima” in our own days? Applauded by none other than international Freemasonry itself. A clear proof that this is no longer the true Fatima, but a falsification that serves the world and not God.

In summary: if Fernando Leite was the pen that wrote the falsification, Luciano Guerra was the arm that imposed it upon the world. Two dedicated agents of modernism who, with worldly zeal, diverted the Sanctuary from its supernatural mission. 

Figura 4: Jose María Escrivá behind the mother of Francisco and Jacinta (February 6, 1945). Also visible are Fr. Álvaro del Portillo, D. José López Ortiz, and Fr. Galamba de Oliveira.

 

Another milestone of modernist infiltration in Fatima was the visit of the founder of Opus Dei, on November 2, 1972.

Arriving in Lisbon on May 8, the next day he went to Coimbra, where he visited “Sister Lucia” in the Carmelite convent of that city—already at that time, according to Chojnowski’s studies, very likely the impostor who had replaced the authentic seer. Shortly afterward, in the afternoon, he set out toward Fatima.

He was accompanied by D. Álvaro del Portillo (his future successor), D. Javier Echevarría (later Prelate of Opus Dei), and a small group of priests and laymen. The car in which they traveled barely managed to make its way through the multitude of pilgrims walking on foot along the same road toward the Sanctuary, in an era when there was still no highway to the Cova da Iria.

This visit, cloaked in pomp, was not merely an act of devotion. It was also a symbolic act: Opus Dei was marking its territory in Fatima, joining forces with the modernist powers that already controlled the Sanctuary, the press, and the very “Sister Lucia” displayed to the public. What might have seemed only a pious event was, in fact, yet another move on the chessboard of the deformation of the Fatima Message, by which an attempt was made to domesticate the prophetic and penitential character of the apparition.

Indeed, we could delve further into the maneuvers of Paul VI, John Paul II, and so many other modernist henchmen who labored for the domination of Fatima and the consolidation of the narrative around the heretical prayer. There are numerous facts, abundant documents, and a plot so vast that it could fill an entire book.—a true dossier of the corruption of the Message.

Nevertheless, so as not to unduly prolong this present article, we spare the reader the details of this network of betrayals and silences. It is enough to recognize: there was a clear strategy, conducted by the conciliar Vatican and its allies, to manipulate Fatima, silence the Third Secret, and impose upon the world the adulterated prayer.

What has Fatima become today? The headlines say it all: a sanctuary overtaken by modernism, a stage for works and commitments that have nothing of the spirit of penance requested by the Virgin.

 

 

Analysis of the Heretical Prayer

“O my Jesus, forgive us, save us from the fires of hell, lead all souls to heaven, especially those in most need”

Here lies the poison disguised as piety. What seemed to be a mere alteration of words hides a subtle and most grave doctrinal distortion. Father Leite, being Portuguese, well aware of the language and of the devotional use of the expression (little Souls) ”alminhas”, could never have ignored that this referred, in Lusitanian tradition, to the souls in Purgatory—those awaiting purification in order to enter into the beatific vision of God.

Sister Lucia should have known this as well, for by changing this word, the entire meaning of the prayer for the Portuguese is altered, no longer being an exclusive plea for the “alminhas” of Purgatory.

More than that, by replacing “little souls” (alminhas) with “souls,” and further reinforcing it with the term “all,” the door was opened to a heretical deviation. For we know, by the Catholic faith, that there are souls: here on earth among the living, the saints in Heaven, the suffering in Purgatory, and the damned in Hell. Now, to ask that Our Lord take all souls to Heaven is to cast a net without distinction, which—by implication—includes even the reprobates of hell and, ultimately, could even be stretched to encompass the demons themselves.

It is no wonder that the promoters of the modernist error and the defenders of the heresy of universal salvation clung to this adulterated version. Many simple faithful recite it without such perverse intention, but the enemies of the faith exploit it to corrode Catholic truth: that hell is eternal, and that those who fall into it shall never come out.

Thus, this modification, seemingly small, carries within itself the seed of the most diabolical of illusions: that even the damned of hell could be redeemed. This is not, therefore, a matter of semantics, but a battle for the integrity of the faith. To alter a single word is enough to disfigure the heavenly message of Fatima, turning it into an instrument of heresy.

 

Promoters of Universal Salvation

 

Hans Urs von Balthasar, the theologian exalted by John Paul II and praised by Benedict XVI as “perhaps the most cultured man of our time,” was also one of the great heralds of the modern heresy of universalism, the vain hope that all would be saved. The corrupted phrase “Lead all souls to heaven,” echoing his theology, served as fuel for this delusion, which dilutes the gravity of sin, empties the Cross of Christ, and turns Hell into a scandal to be erased. It is no wonder he became the favorite theologian of the conciliar popes, for his work fits neatly with the modernist agenda of relativizing revealed Truth and opening the doors to every kind of doctrine.

The irony is that the man appointed cardinal by Wojtyla died two days before the nomination, an eloquent sign of the vanity of a project that sought to crown error within the very Church. His journal Communio, founded alongside other figures of the New Theology, widely spread these corrosive ideas. And the same Balthasar, hailed as a luminary, did not hesitate to endorse writings connected to esotericism and the occult, such as the Meditations on the Tarot.

It is from Hans Urs von Balthasar that the famous quotation comes:

“Although there are cases in which not only images of hell were shown (as is, in my judgment, the case of the vision of hell of the children of Fatima), but certain chosen ones had the subjective certainty that a number of men are already lost, nevertheless in them (and this is the purpose of the revelation) what prevails far more than the idea that, before what was contemplated as lost, nothing more can be done, is the desire to oppose what they were shown, to annul it.”

Here Balthasar insinuates that even when God shows, in visions, that souls are already lost—as at Fatima—this would not serve to confirm the reality of Hell, but only to awaken in us the desire that such perdition not exist. In other words: he tries to turn the vision of Hell into a mere “emotional provocation,” opening the way to the error of universalism, as if all could be saved in the end.

But the Church has always taught clearly: Hell is real, eternal, and inhabited. The vision of Fatima was not given to be denied or “annulled by human desire,” but to call to conversion, to the fear of God, and to reparation. To replace this with sentimentalism is pure modernism.

The heresy of pan-salvationism, which had already arisen with the ancient Origen and his chimera of an empty Hell, was taken up with greater boldness by post-Conciliar modernism. If the ancient error still admitted temporary expiation, the new neo-Origenism proclaims in advance the salvation of all—without faith, without baptism, without conversion. And who rose as its chief herald? John Paul II, the one who dared to clothe with papal authority the delusion that “all are already elected,” “all are already children of God,” and that the Incarnation of Christ in itself had transformed every man into a participant in divine life.

Here lies the scandal: the message of Fatima, which showed the children the eternal fire and the souls falling into it like snowflakes, was betrayed and inverted. Where the Virgin intended to move to fear and penance, the modernists raised the banner of universal salvation, erasing divine justice. In Wojtyla’s encyclicals—Redemptor Hominis, Dives in Misericordia, Dominum et Vivificantem—the poison disguised as piety is found: the practical denial of Hell and of the necessity of the Church for salvation. Thus, it is no wonder that such heresy contaminated the conciliar liturgy, when the pro multis of the Blood shed “for many” was replaced by the infamous “for all.”

This is the momentary triumph of modernism: an adulterated “gospel” that promises Heaven to all, even to those who reject Christ and die in mortal sin.

Unlike Wojtyla, who linked universal salvation to the Incarnation, Balthasar, nourished by the private visions of the mystic Adrienne von Speyr, sought to ground it in Christ’s Descent into Hell. For him, there were no damned in the abyss, but only “effigies of sins” that Christ had destroyed, leaving Hell empty of men. In this way, the solemn dogma of the Church, which has always taught the eternity of punishments and the reality of the reprobate, is dissolved into subjective images and into an ambiguous “hope.”

Here we see the trail of the most poisonous modernism: theology shaped not by the public and definitive Revelation of Christ, but by supposed private revelations of a recent convert, erected as a criterion of faith. The result is clear: an adulterated Gospel, one that denies divine justice, makes Hell into a pedagogical illusion, and reduces the Lord’s Passion to a stage play of universal optimism.

The visions of Adrienne von Speyr, adopted and absolutized by Hans Urs von Balthasar, describe a “hell” without men, containing only “effigies of sins” that dissolve into an “infernal river.” For her, “with His descent into Hell, Christ completely emptied Hell of every man.”

Balthasar, for his part, declared that “his theology cannot be separated from that of Adrienne von Speyr” and that he “considers Adrienne’s work far more important than his own.” Thus, he places at the center of the faith the idea that Christ descended into the abyss “to communicate in absolute weakness (…) the gift of Love that opens every prison and dissolves all hardness: in intimate solidarity with those who reject all solidarity.”

He himself sums it up: “the doctrine of the Descensus is not one dogma among many others, but the center and indeed the whole essential content of his theology. Von Balthasar is the theologian of the Descent in absolute terms.”

Here is the perversion: to replace the Catholic dogma of divine justice with the illusion that Hell is empty. It is nothing less than pure Origenism reborn, disguised as mysticism and erudition.

After von Balthasar received various criticisms regarding his theology, in 1986 he published a work in which he once again addressed what was, for him, the most important theme: the defense of Origenism through the hope of the salvation of all.

In fact, von Balthasar should have drawn from his premises the conclusion of universal salvation itself. And not a few times, in fact, universal salvation appears in his writings as something necessary; but, at the same time, in his last two works, he presents himself more cautiously as a representative of a universal hope. For him, it is not certain, but one may hope, that all will be snatched from Hell. Thus he expresses himself against his adversaries:

“We certainly do not want to contradict the one who, as a Christian, cannot feel happy except by denying us the universality of hope, with the certainty of his Hell full: this was also the opinion of a great number of important theologians, especially those who referred to Saint Augustine. But we ask reciprocally that they maintain the hope that God’s salvific work in His creation has been successful. There can be no certainty, but hope is well-founded.”

And again:

“It would be within God’s power to make that Grace which flows over the world from the voluntary sacrifice of His Son (II Cor. 5:19) so powerful as to become ‘efficacious grace’ for all sinners. But we can only hope for this.”

Concerning Saint Augustine, von Balthasar observes that his doctrine inaugurated a “sad history,” prolonged up to the Reformation and beyond, by maintaining that only some would be predestined. He even goes so far as to affirm that, in the end, “it does not matter whether the elect are many or few.”

But von Balthasar does not limit himself to defending a vague hope of universal salvation; he elevates it to a true “duty of hope for all.” He cites Karl Rahner in support: “We must preserve the doctrine of God’s universal Will for Salvation, and the duty to hope for the salvation of all.” In this line, all Christians would be bound to keep such hope alive. He also appeals to Herman Josef Lauter, who maintains: “Love can only hope for the reconciliation of all in Christ. This limitless hope is not only lawful, but demanded by Christianity itself.”

Von Balthasar goes further: without this hope of a universal Heaven, authentic love itself would be compromised. As he writes: “If someone admits that even a single person can be lost forever, then he can no longer love unconditionally.” And for him, the idea of a “Heaven for all” would not be an invitation to spiritual laziness, but, on the contrary, “the most urgent stimulus one can conceive: the decision for a patience that never surrenders, but remains willing to wait for one’s neighbor for an infinite time.”

In his Brief Discourse on Hell, Hans Urs von Balthasar bases himself on the fact that many share his position—especially John Paul II. After citing Besler’s critique, which affirmed that Adrienne von Speyr’s doctrine “contradicts Christian Revelation and the Magisterium of the Church,” Balthasar responds with irony: “It is a shame for him that the Holy Father thinks so differently, as can be seen in his address delivered in Rome during the symposium on Adrienne von Speyr that he himself had convoked. Therefore, we must hurry to burn the witch before she is beatified. For Edith Stein, to whom I will leave the last word in this book, it is already too late.”

It is no surprise that John Paul II placed so much value on the ideas of Adrienne von Speyr and Balthasar. This was evident not only in his 1988 address in Rome on Adrienne, but also in the honor bestowed on Balthasar with the Balzan Prize, at Wojtyla’s own recommendation (p. 55). Thus, it becomes clear that the three—John Paul II, Adrienne von Speyr, and Balthasar—each in their own way, become representatives of Origenism. The divergence between them is not in content, but only in emphasis: John Paul II associated universal salvation with the Incarnation of Christ, while Balthasar linked it to the descent into hell.

After Edith Stein had been exalted, even while also defending the idea of universal salvation, it seemed natural—at least in the eyes of John Paul II—that Adrienne von Speyr should follow a similar path. It is no coincidence that Balthasar ends his work by giving the last word to Edith Stein. In the cited text, she writes:

“Thus merciful love can pour itself out upon all. We believe it can. And how could there be souls that resist it forever? As a possibility, in principle, it cannot be excluded; but in practice, it can become infinitely improbable. Precisely because of what preparatory Grace can accomplish in the soul. It can knock at the door—and there are souls that already open themselves to this gentle call. Others, perhaps, do not listen. But it can also penetrate the soul and develop itself more and more within it. The more space it gains in this way, the more improbable it becomes that the soul remains closed.”

When Edith Stein speaks of a Grace that illegitimately conquers space—that is, without free human cooperation—she is implicitly affirming the possibility of a “grace” that cancels freedom. But this would no longer be true grace, for according to the Catholic faith, grace never destroys freedom but elevates it.

Von Balthasar, however, does not walk this heretical path alone. He himself admits with pride:

“My critics think that I am alone in that limbo where they want to put me. But in fact, I am in excellent company. With me are my two great masters, Erich Przywara and Henri de Lubac, my former professor Rondet, my friend Frossard, the Cardinal Archbishop of Paris, the great Blondel, the ex-socialist Péguy—who only wanted to be Catholic if he could have hope for all—, Claudel in his famous Cantique de Palmyre, Gabriel Marcel, the barricade-fighter Léon Bloy (‘No human being is excluded from redemption; otherwise there would be no communion of saints. The exclusion of even one soul from the marvelous symphony of the world is unimaginable and would destroy universal harmony’). And also Cardinal Ratzinger, Hermann Josef Lauter, Walter Kasper, Gisbert Greshake, Hansjürgen Verweyen. Whoever reads Reinhold Schneider will see that he too thinks like all of them. Guardini is not lacking, and ‘last but not least,’ Karl Rahner, who said many intelligent things about this. In short: a cause in which one cannot help but feel at home.”

And as if that were not enough, Balthasar reinforces his position by citing the Catholic Catechism for Adults, written under the direction of Walter Kasper:

“Neither in Sacred Scripture nor in the entire tradition of the Church is it affirmed with certainty that anyone is really in Hell. Hell appears only as a real possibility, linked to the commandment of conversion and of life.”

Thus, while Balthasar proclaims that he is in the “best company,” what we actually see is the alliance of the entire modernist elite of the twentieth century, united to reopen the doors of Origen’s ancient heresy, now disguised as piety and false hope.

 

 

Condemnations of the Magisterium

 

It is necessary to distinguish between the so-called “universalism of hope,” defended by Hans Urs von Balthasar, and the ancient theory of apocatastasis (or final restoration), attributed to authors such as Origen and Isaac the Syrian. The fundamental difference is that hopeful universalism limits itself to a subjective desire that all may be saved, while apocatastasis objectively affirms that the damnation of the wicked is only provisional, ending in full restoration.

It should be recalled that apocatastasis was formally rejected by the Church. The Synod of Constantinople in 543 had already condemned such a position in its ninth canon, a condemnation confirmed by the Second Council of Constantinople (553):

“If anyone says or holds that the punishment of demons and of impious men is only temporary, and that it will have an end after a certain time, or that there will be a complete restoration of demons and of impious men, let him be anathema” (Denz. 211).

The so-called “Hopeful Universalism” comes into direct conflict with the solemn definitions of three Ecumenical Councils—Lateran IV (Denz. 429), Lyons II (Denz. 464), and Florence (Denz. 693)—regarding the punishments of the damned, both the poena damni (the eternal loss of the vision of God) and the poena sensus (the inflicted suffering). To insinuate that such definitions do not concretely apply would be to reduce them to mere empty formulas, emptying out the very meaning of magisterial authority. This matter remains as infallible teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, that is, the unanimous and constant witness of the Fathers and Popes throughout history.

In the same sense, the Spanish theologians Francis Sola, SJ, and Joseph Sagues, SJ, explain that the Magisterium implicitly defined as a matter of divine and Catholic faith that “the wicked are deprived of eternal life; and explicitly, that they are consigned to a punishment distinct from this privation of God, and that, according to the evident sense of the words, is positively inflicted upon them” (Sacre Theologiae Summa, vol. IVB, 1956, trans. Kenneth Baker SJ, p. 368).

Here follows a brief list of papal declarations on the subject:

(1) Pope Innocent III, Lateran IV (12th Ecumenical Council, 1215):

But He descended in soul and rose again in flesh, and ascended equally in both, to come at the end of time to judge the living and the dead, and to render to each according to his works, to the wicked as well as to the elect, all of whom will rise again with the bodies they now bear, so that they may receive according to their works, whether these works have been good or evil—the latter eternal punishment with the devil, and the former eternal glory with Christ. (Denz. 429)

(2) Pope Innocent IV, Sub Catholicae Professione (March 6, 1254):

Moreover, if anyone dies in mortal sin without repentance, without doubt he will be tortured forever by the flames of eternal hell. But the souls of children after the purification of baptism, and also of adults who depart in charity and who are bound neither by sin nor by any satisfaction for their own sin, immediately pass swiftly into their eternal homeland. (Denz. 457)

(3) Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei (August 28, 1794):

The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the Limbo of Children) where the souls of those who depart with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the damned, excluding the fire—exactly as if by this very fact those who remove the punishment of fire introduced that place and intermediate state, free of guilt and punishment, between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, like that about which the Pelagians idly talk: [Condemned as] false, rash, and injurious to Catholic schools. (Denz. 1526)

 

The Plan to Demasculinize the Church

Figura 5: Demasculinize the Church? Book on the principles of Von Balthasar with a preface by ‘Pope’ Francis.

The book “Demasculinizing the Church?”, published with a preface by Pope Francis, is living proof of how the poison of Hans Urs von Balthasar sprouted and bore fruit: his theology of hopeful universalism and of a sentimental Church now culminates in open proposals to “soften” and weaken the Bride of Christ, stripping her of the virile and combative character that has always formed martyrs and saints.

What Balthasar began by emptying Hell and dissolving divine justice, others today carry forward by proposing a Church without a sword and without spiritual militancy, reduced to a space of humanitarian inclusion. It is the logical consequence of his project: to replace militant and penitent faith with the feeble caricature of a universalist and harmless religion.

 

Conclusion

In summary, the new Balthasarian prayer, forged by Fatima’s journalists and sustained by the false “new Sister Lucia,” never received approval from the Church. On the contrary, it was embraced with enthusiasm by the modernists, who always seek to corrupt true devotion.

Let us reject this falsification, cast this prayer out of our rosaries, and remain faithful to the authentic Marian tradition. May the Justice of God fall upon all who dared to destroy true devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary!

Laus Deo
A.M.D.G.

By Yuri Maria,
August 30, 2025 – Feast of Saint Rose of Lima

Source of translation: https://www.totalista.net/post/levai-as-almas-todas-para-o-céu-a-herética-versão-da-oração-de-n-s-de-fátima

 

 

Sources;

1.Padre leite, jornal correio do minho, 03/12/2009,pag 9, matéria; Morreu o padre Leite.

 

2.https://agencia.ecclesia.pt/portal/rotary-club-de-porto-de-mos-homenageia-mons-luciano-guerra/

 

3.Voz da Fatima, director Father Luciano Leite, year 56, N 662, 13th November 1977.

 

4. La última vez en el artículo: Erlósung durch das-Geheimnis der Menschenwerdung [Redención a través del misterio de la Encarnación, SAKAINFORMATIONEN], noviembre de 1986.

 

5. Encíclica “Redemptor Hominis”, 1979, n.11,4.

 

6. Encíclica “Dives in Misericordia”, 1980, n.4,12.

 

7. RAFAEL MARTINS FERNANDES A IGREJA E O ESPÍRITO DA VERDADE EM HANS URS VON BALTHASAR: Um estudo do pensamento eclesiológico , dissertação 2014.

 

8. P. Dr. Luigi Villa Hans Urs von Balthasar y Adrienne von Speyr Operarias de María Inmaculada Editorial Civiltà – Brescia Via Galileo Galilei, 121 – 25125 Brescia (Italia)

 

9. Balthasar, Hell, and Heresy: An Exchange, Alyssa Lyra Pitstick and Edward T. Oakes, December 1, 2006, Article, Alyssa Lyra Pitstick

 

10. https://it.cathopedia.org/wiki/Hans_Urs_von_Balthasar

 

11. Esperar a salvação: a escatologia de Hans Urs von Balthasar / organização de Leomar Antônio Brustolin. – São Paulo: Paulus, 2019. Coleção Teologia sistemática.

 

12. https://www.permanencia.org.br/drupal/node/474, Urs von Balthasar, o pai da apostasia ecumênica, Julho 12, 2009

 

13. Sodalitium, n* 27, pág. 39. Título original: Si puo sperare la salvezza di tutti? Autor: Prof. Dr. Wigand Siebel. Fecha: noviembre 1991.

 

14. Afonso, Daniel. “A Co-Redenção Mariana Em Hans Urs Von Balthasar. As Mariofanias Seriam Uma Manifestação Da Cooperação De Maria à Obra Da Salvação?” Igreja e Missão, 209, 2008.

 

15. Joseph Ratzinger Hans Urs Von Balthasar, María, Iglesia Naciente Encuentro, Título Original Maria Kirche IM Ursprung

 

16. Cubells, Salvador. URS VON BALTHASAR_sobre El Infierno.pdf.

 

17. https://senzapagare.blogspot.com/2014/02/o-primeiro-santo-de-fatima-s-josemaria.html
18. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riX-bdBfSTI – Ignatius Press

 

19. https://fatima.org/about/fatima-the-facts/

 

20. https://gaudiumetspes22.com/blog/balthasars-dare-we-hope-that-all-men-be-saved-a-defense

 

21. Hope and Hell: The Balthasarian Suspension of Judgment

January 2017The Thomist A Speculative Quarterly Review 81(1):75-105

DOI:10.1353/tho.2017.0002

 

22. https://catholicmasses.org/hans-urs-von-balthasars-thoughts-on-the-inhabitants-of-hell/

 

23. Pressupostos da Esperança Universalista de Balthasar e da Proposta Escatológica Alternativa de Maritain. (nd) > The Free Library. (2014). Recuperado em 6 de setembro de 2025 de https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Presuppositions+of+Balthasar%27s+Universalist+Hope+and+Maritain%27s…-a0434320569

 

24. Raczynski-Rozek, Maciej. (2019). Le escatologie della speranza – Hans Urs von Balthasar e Wacław Hryniewicz.

 

25. Kleine Eschatologie” (Pequena Escatologia), (em português: Escatologia na nossa época, Edições Paulinas, anos 1970.

 

26. Sisterlucytruth.org

 

26. Sisterlucytruth.org

Below – Image of the true Seer of Fatima kneeling by a stream saying the rosary – 1946