No, in the first quote Ratzinger is getting pantheistic and saying God is all around us in the universe and so on.  He is not "localized" in Church but "omnipresent."

In the second paragraph, he simply acts as if he never said what he did in the first paragraph.  That is what he has done throughout his entire nefarious career.  Pius X warned about precisely this:

Pascendi Domenici Gregis, EVERYONE READ THIS AND MEMORIZE IT:

"This will appear more clearly to anybody who studies the conduct of Modernists, which is in perfect harmony with their teachings. In their writings and addresses they seem not unfrequently to advocate doctrines which are contrary one to the other, so that one would be disposed to regard their attitude as double and doubtful. But this is done deliberately and advisedly, and the reason of it is to be found in their opinion as to the mutual separation of science and faith. Thus in their books one finds some things which might well be approved by a Catholic, but on turning over the page one is confronted by other things which might well have been dictated by a rationalist.

Or a Theosophist, or a Pantheist, or any other kind of heretic.  The point is, truth is mixed with lies.  This gives the mind no place to rest -- it hops from orthodox statements to heretical ones and back again, never knowing where it stands or what to believe.  If you don't learn this, you are dead meat.  This is all about double-mindedness and schizophrenia, because the devil is trying to turn the whole world schizophrenic, and he has mostly succeeded.

The effect of reading such a book as Ratzinger's, which "advocates doctrines contrary one to another," would be to freak out at the first paragraph, and then be reassured by the second paragraph.  Then you go back and read the first pargraph "in the light of" the second paragraph, which cannot be done -- but you trick yourself into thinking it can be done, because you can't believe that a man could contradict himself so blatantly.  You assume there must be another explanation and
then you manufacture it for yourself.

This is, naturally, why we are always told to read VII docuмents "in the light of tradition."  ( Of course, "light" refers to Lucifer here, as it is his light that shines upon Vatican II ).  A Rohrshach test is presented to us and we read whatever we want to read into these docuмents.  We assume that they can't possibly be as bad as they look, so we pretend they aren't saying what they're saying, and stick our heads in the sand.

For the millionth time, read about Hitler and the "Grosse Luge" or Great Lie technique.  You will not understand Pius XII and Vatican II until you understand that you are being put under a kind of hypnosis.

Ratzinger said:

"Eucharistic devotion such as is noted in the silent visit by the devout in church must not be thought of as a conversation with God."

No context can justify this.  It is out-and-out blasphemy.