SSPX Bishop Tissier de Mallerrais gave an exclusive interview to the Remnant on April 30 of 2006. (See a portion of that interview below.) In that excerpt he spoke about the alleged heresies of Ratzinger/Benedict. One can say in retrospect, that his revelations then served only as a 'primer' for a much lengthier, more philosophically and theologically oriented presentation on the same heretical themes, written by His Grace some three years later, in the summer of 2009. He entitled the work: Faith Imperiled by Reason- Benedict XVI's Hermeneutics.
The original essay appeared only in French, a copy of which fell into the hands of a traditional Catholic friend of ours. This friend thought it would be a good idea to translate the work into English for circulation abroad among English speaking readers. That translation was accomplished.
Subsequently, the 82 page essay was published on Stephen Heiner's True Restoration blog spot. But Bp. Tissier, very soon after its publication, asked that the essay be removed and not be made available to the public. I'll leave the 'Why?' of that request for the reader to figure out. His Grace obviously wrote the paper to be read, but, apparently, for the consumption only of a limited readership.
What Bp. Tissier was eager and willing to reveal about the alleged heresies of Ratzinger/Benedict in 2006, he seems not so eager and willing to reveal now.
In any case, one can pretty well discover what the essay is driving at, merely by reading that portion of the 2006 interview supplied below.
An excerpt from Bp. Tissier's 2006 interview:
SH(Stephen Heiner): Well, that’s all my questions, my lord. Now, when I type this I want to make sure all my quotes are accurate, so I will send you a transcript before you go to Veneta…
HL(His Lordship Bp. Tissier): No, no, these questions, you have not addressed the essential things – I appreciate your questions but you did not touch anything essential in your questions.
SH: What more, My Lord?
HL: Well, for instance, that this Pope has professed heresies in the past! He has professed heresies! I do not know whether he still does.
SH: When you say “has professed,” do you mean he still does?
HL: No, but he has never retracted his errors.
SH: But My Lord, if he has not retracted them, does he not still retain them? Of what are you speaking? Can you be more specific? I must admit I am no theologian and I have not read any of his works. Was this when he was a cardinal?
HL: It was when he was a priest. When he was a theologian, he professed heresies, he published a book full of heresies.
SH: My Lord, I need you to be more specific, so we can examine the matter.
HL: Yes, sure. He has a book called Introduction to Christianity, it was in 1968. It is a book full of heresies. Especially the negation of the dogma of the Redemption.
SH: In what sense, My Lord?
HL: He says that Christ did not satisfy for our sins, did not – atone – He, Jesus Christ, on the Cross, did not make satisfaction for our sins. This book denies Christ’s atonement of sins.
SH: Ah, I’m not sure I understand…
HL: He denies the necessity of satisfaction.
SH: This sounds like Luther.
HL: No, it goes much further than Luther. Luther admits the sacrifice…the satisfaction of Christ. It is worse than Luther, much worse.
SH: My Lord, I must return to the beginning of this line of questioning: are you saying he is a heretic?
HL: No. But he has never retracted these statements.
SH: Well, then, what would you say, My Lord, that it was “suspicious,” “questionable,” “favoring heresy”?
HL: No, it is clear. I can quote him. He rejects “an extremely rudimentary presentation of the theology of satisfaction (seen as) a mechanism of an injured and reestablished right. It would be the manner with which the justice of God, infinitely offended, would have been reconciled anew by an infinite satisfaction…some texts of devotion seem to suggest that the Christian faith in the Cross understands God as a God whose inexorable justice required a human sacrifice, the sacrifice of his own Son. And we flee with horror from a justice, the dark anger of which removes any credibility from the message of love” (translated from the German version, pages 232-233).
SH: What other heresies, My Lord?
HL: Many others. Many others. He has put up doubts regarding the divinity of Christ, regarding the dogma of the Incarnation…
SH: This cannot be true…
HL: It is very true. He re-reads, re-interprets all the dogmas of the Church. This is it. This is what he calls the “hermeneutic” in his discourse of 22 December 2005.
SH: This hermeneutic is also known as the “living tradition…” It would interpret existing doctrines in new lights…
HL: Yes, exactly. According to the new philosophy, the idealist philosophy of Kant.
SH: These are very strong words, My Lord, but yet, the Society is not sedevacantist…
HL: No, no, no, no. He is the Pope…
SH: But these are strong words…
HL: Ecclesia supplet. The Church supplies. It is even in the code of canon law: “in case of doubt, the Church supplies the executive power.” He is the Pope. Ecclesia Supplet. But we must know he has professed heresies.
SH: My Lord…has there been such a dark time in Church history?
HL: That is difficult to say. I would not say such a thing. It is sufficient to say that he has professed heresies.
SH: My Lord, I must emphasize that the paper I am writing for has wide circulation in the English speaking world…are these the words you wish to use?
HL: Yes. Yes. I have read Joseph Ratzinger, and have read his books. I can assure you that it is true.