I should clarify that Cardinal Ratzinger's first quote "It has never been asserted that nature in a physical sense is being changed" was said about the Eucharist.

Even if by the "physical sense" Ratzinger meant the accidents, his quote is entirely conformable to the teaching of the Protestants. The Lutherans especially teach this with clarity in their doctrine of consubstantiation: bread and wine are there, and Christ is there as well. Isn't this exactly what Ratzinger's first quote says? The Lutherans avoid the substance/accidents distinction, but if they did use it, couldn't they be shown to mean precisely the same thing that Ratzinger was saying?

The only way in which The Catholic doctrine could not be conformable with Lutheranism is if there was nothing bready and winy left in the Sacrament. The accidents would be mere illusions; the substances of bread and wine would be totally gone, the "physical" thing in the Sacrament would be our Blessed Lord.

Regarding the first quote, I agree with TKGS.  Regarding the second quote, I'm not sure WTH Benedict is saying.

I guess I'm trying to understand how, if bread is physically present, and Christ is also present, in the bread, that is any different from the Lutheran position.

I thought the entire physicality of the bread is scooped out, Christ being present "fully and substantially"...

Ya 1seeker, that first quote is certainly confusing.  I read it as you do, it does sound pretty Lutheran the "consubstantiation" thing versus Catholic transubstantiation. But perhaps it could be read charitably with a Catholic interpretation.

As for the second quote, I'm not sure how that can be defended at all.

Luke

"It has never been asserted that, so to say, nature in a physical sense is being changed. The transformation reaches down to a more profound level. Tradition has it that this is a metaphysical process. Christ lays hold upon what is, from a purely physical viewpoint, bread and wine, in its inmost being, so that it is changed from within and Christ truly gives himself in them."

-Cardinal Ratzinger, God and the World, Believing and Living in Our Time, p.408

1. In Sacramental Theology, the quote above is heretical.
2. The "it has never been asserted that, so to say, nature in a physical sense is being changed," is wrong. He is either ignorant or lying. Concerning remark in that Sacramental Theology is foundational for a priest, let alone a Cardinal (at the time). Like a surgeon who is ignorant of basic O.R. protocol; there is no excuse, unless he is deceiving. This is Our Lord for crying out loud.


- A Manual of Catholic Theology: Scheeben Vol II: Transubstantiation A Manual of Catholic Theology: Scheeben Vol II

1. "By the words of consecration the whole substance of bread is changed into our Lord's body, and the whole substance of wine is changed into His blood, the appearance (species) of bread and wine remaining." pg. 415
2. "It is founded on the familiar distinction between a substance and its accidents or phenomena." ... "In the Blessed Sacrament the substantial change takes place without any accidental change." pg. 416.

1. "The words of institution, 'This is My body,' are equivalent to two propositions: (a) 'This which I hold in My hand, which is now here before you, is My body; and (b)'This which I hold in My hand, which is now before you, is no longer bread.' If bread were still present, our Lord could not say, 'THIS is My body,' but only, 'HERE, or IN THIS, is My Body.' That is to say, when our Lord pronounced the words, what He held in His hands must have ceased to be bread, and must have become His body." pg. 416
2. "And as no change took place in the accidents or appearances, the change must have been that which is called transubstantiation."
3. "If we examine the writings of the Fathers, we see that not only do they teach the doctrine of transubstantiation, but they base their belief in it on the words of institution." pg. 417.
4. Quoting St. Cyril: "What seems bread is not bread, though it seems so to the taste, but Christ's body..." ... Christ Himself declared it His own Body and blood." pg. 417.
5. Quoting St. John Damascene: "The bread itself and wine are changed into the body and blood of God"
6. "When the Fathers speak of our Lord's body and blood as being in bread and wine, they do not mean that the substance of bread and wine remains, but they refer either to that out of which the sacrament is made, or to the appearance under which our Lord is present." pg. 418.

1. "The transformation reaches down to a more profound level." This is pure Modernism. Keep in mind the doctrine of transubstantiation is a Dogma. Hence...
2. "If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the Dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema."  - First Vatican Council, Session 3; April 24th 1870

- Decrees of the Ecuмenical Councils Volume II.

Quote

The transformation reaches down to a more profound level. Tradition has it that this is a metaphysical process.

This is the key to what B16 meant.

Merriam Webster

Quote

1 :  of or relating to metaphysics


2 a :  of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses  

b :  supernatural

In no way was B16 denying the real presence, he simply meant it is metaphysical- meaning beyond human conception. Like time or space.

I see your point of view, Crossbow but what Ratzinger is stating is heretical. His words of "reaching a more profound level' is attributing a quantitative aspect. It is either a valid consecration or not. Qualitative, like a female is pregnant or not on her pregnancy test. What he was taught was to believe and give his assent to faith to the truth that a consecrated valid host is truly the Our Lord's Body, hidden beneatht he veil of a 'wafer.' It's Ratzinger's inability to see the simple truth that is indicative of a mind infected with modernism. Faith, as the Church teaches, "that supernatural virtue by which, through the help of God we believe what He has revealed to be true, not on account of the intrinsic truth perceived by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God Himself, the Revealer, who can neither deceive nor be deceived." - Satis Cognitum (Leo XIII) #3, #9.

Ratzinger is smart, educated and intellectual. A fertile ground to the temptations to modernistic thinking. In this sense, he is too smart for his own good, and that was a stumbling block to the Jєωs who couldn't take a truth 'as is.' They needed that deeper understanding.

1. Tradition has never used 'metaphysical descriptions' in describing transubstantiation. It is black and white. Never applied a 'deeper meaning' that needs vital emanence or intellect. It is what it is. Hence the Fathers were very specific and didn't give any leeway that Cardinal Ratzinger does, hence why he is a Modernist. What's worse, he's attributing to the 'Father's his own liberalization.
2. Why Christ said 'This is My Body' - as it really is, not explained in some metaphysical deeper understanding. That's why the Jєωs were saying, "How can this man give us His Flesh to eat? Jesus said, amen, amen I say to you, except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you. These words of our Lord, taken in the literal sense, are plain proof of the Real Presence. Difficulties, indeed, these are in believing such a marvel, but 'with God, all things are possible.' Protestants, on the other hand, are so overwhelmed by these difficulties, that they think that our Lord must have meant something else. pg. 403 Sheeben.
3. "We should bear in mind that our Lord was wont to make two sorts of answers to objections against His teaching. When the objection arose from a difficulty in understanding HIs meaning, He used to explain. When the difficulty was not in understanding His doctrine, but in accepting it, He did not explain, but insisted all the more." pg. 404 Sheeben (on transubstantiation).
4.Why many couldn't accept this teaching of His, until the Apostles said, 'this saying is hard and who can hear it?' He never explained in some deeper meaning. Until they ultimately responded: 'To whom shall we go?'
5.

B16 says right in the quote of the OP that it is changed.

I do not see him denying the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist in the quote given.

"It has never been asserted that, so to say, nature in a physical sense is being changed. The transformation reaches down to a more profound level. Tradition has it that this is a metaphysical process. Christ lays hold upon what is, from a purely physical viewpoint, bread and wine, in its inmost being, so that it is changed from within and Christ truly gives himself in them."

1. Abbreviated: "It  has not been asserted that nature in a physical sense is being changed."

2.He is asserting that nature in a physical sense is not being changed.

3.His error is that the 'nature' of a substance is it's "essential qualities and innate disposition." Hence out of his (Ratzinger's) own mouth he is saying that the bread remains the bread because it's essential qualities and innate disposition are still the same.

4.The word 'nature' is derived from the Latin word natura, or "essential qualities, innate disposition", and in ancient times, literally meant "birth".
Nature

5. "physical sense" is extraneous or you could say a non sequitur as given in this context (Sacramental Theology).

6. This illustrates why Modernism is so pernicious. Instead of taking one of THE greatestest Mysteries of our Faith - Transubstantiaion - with simplicity....and with respect as given the warnings of Our Lord not to penetrate It's mysteries He has forbidden  -- Ratzinger gives free reign here. Modernism leads first and foremost to a loss of Faith - unfortunate in his case, because he will be the last to know it.