CathInfo.com

And how right they were and you are DigitalLogos. Here are two quotes from one of his books. In the Beginning

Beginning by quoting Genesis 1:1-19, Cardinal Ratzinger tells all what Genesis really means to him, a future Pope:

‘Yet these words [of Genesis] give rise to a certain conflict. They are beautiful and familiar, but are they true? Everything seems to speak against it, for science has long since disposed of the concepts that we have just now heard – the idea of a world that is completely comprehensible in terms of space and time, and the idea that the creation was built up piece by piece over the course of seven days. Instead of this we now face measurements that transcend all comprehension. Today we hear of the Big Bang, which happened billions of years ago and with which the universe began its expansion – an expansion that continues to occur without interruption. And it was not in neat succession that the stars were hung and the green fields created; it was rather in complex ways and over vast periods of time that the earth and the universe were constructed as we now know them. Do these words [of Genesis] then, count for anything? In fact, a theologian said not so long ago that creation has now become an unreal concept. If one is to be intellectually honest one ought to speak no longer of creation but rather of mutation and selection. Are these words true?... Is there an answer to this that we can claim for ourselves in this day and age?... Thus far it has become clear that the Biblical creation narratives represent another way of speaking about reality than that with which we are familiar from physics and biology.’ --- Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger: In the Beginning.

There followed Ratzinger’s opinion of Genesis 2:4-9, the creation of man from the soil of the Earth.


‘We are told you are not God, you did not make yourself and you do not rule the universe, you are limited. You are a being destined for death, as are all things living; you are only earth…..
All of this is well and good, one might say, but is it not ultimately disproved by our scientific knowledge of how the human being evolved from the animal kingdom?... But let us look a little closer, because here too, the progress of thought in the last two decades help us to grasp anew the inner unity of creation and evolution of faith and reason…. It perceived that all things that we used to consider as unchanging and immutable were the product of a long process of becoming.’--- In the Beginning, 

The Absurdity of Original Sin


Having quoted Genesis 3:1-12, 17-19, 23-24; Cardinal Ratzinger continues his homilies to give us an  understanding ‘On the Subject of Sin.’

‘The account [in Genesis] tells us that sin begets sin, and that therefore all the sins of history are interlinked. Theology refers to this state of affairs by the certainly misleading and imprecise term ‘original sin.’ What does this mean? Nothing seems to us today to be stranger or, indeed, more absurd than to insist upon original sin, since, according to our way of thinking, guilt can only be something very personal and since God does not run a cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρ, in which one’s relatives are imprisoned, because he is a liberating God of love, who calls each one by name. What does original sin mean, then, when we interpret it correctly?.... Sin is a loss of relationship,…therefore it is not restricted to the individual. At the very moment that a person begins human existence, he or she is confronted by a sin damaged world.’ Consequently, each person is, from the very start, damaged in relationships. (p, 72.)

Yes, it's truly outrageous, Cassini, but the thing is most Trads in the FSSP and Indult etc. have been led to believe that he only wrote these things in his youth.

Taylor Marshall, Anthony Stein, Ann Barnhardt, Kennedy Hall and the rest of the Tradcasters

as well as AB Vigano

promote the idea that as Benedict matured he became Traditional.

They talk about that old saying "a young man who is conservative has no heart but an old man who is liberal has no mind....he he he.  Well, that's what happened with Ratzinger when he became pope and Francis hates him for it because he was so rigid."
   
Yet Benedict wrote books while the acting pope stating Jews don't need Jesus to go to heaven and so much more.

I know you know about this but for those who are reading this and may have been mislead by these popular tradcasters this video will show you the truth:




I don't agree with the all of the conclusions of the video producers but Catholics deserve to know the truth about Benedict's heresies and they do a good job of cataloging those. 

Why are all the tradcasters deceiving people with a different narrative?

However, Cassini,  to the point of what you have shared from his younger days, which is just the tip of the ice berg, 

the question remains:

How did this non-Catholic get elected pope?

Is it possible to consecrate such a public heretic to office?

No. 

It's the equivalent to using a potato chip at the consecration at Mass instead of unleavened bread - it’s invalid matter and no consecration takes place.

A public heretic or apostate is not “valid matter”for any office in the Church as such a one is barred by divine law from the papacy.