Provide the surrounding context please.
Okay - here is another translation which includes the entire page from which the quote is taken: http://www.novusordowatch.org/benedict/sbce-trans.htm
For a start, the quote relates to this: "In a strange manner, the Idealistic heresy
(if this is what we wish to call it) is today connected with the Marxist one, about which Heidegger brilliantly said that materialism does not at all consist in interpreting all being as matter, but that it assesses all matter as the mere material [matter] of human labor."
Cardinal Ratzinger then further says:
"With these perspectives we have automatically returned to the starting point of our reflections. What in fact -- in this manner we can now ask again -- does the man do who celebrates the divine service of the Church, the sacraments of Jesus Christ? He does not abandon himself to the naive idea that God, the Omnipresent One, lives only
at this place in space which is designated by the tabernacle in the church. This would already contradict the most superficial understanding of the dogmatic statement content, because the species of the Eucharist is not the presence of God in general [i.e. God as such] but the presence of the man Jesus Christ
, which refers to [i.e. points to] the horizontal historically-bound character of the divine encounter of man.
He who goes to church and celebrates her sacraments does not do so, either, if he understands everything correctly, because he thinks the spiritual God is in need of material
[i.e. physical] media in order to touch the spirit of man."
My only concern would be the meaning of the part I have put in italics - I am not sure whether that is orthodox thinking or not. However, the rest of it seems fairly correct to me - it is wrong to think that God is present ONLY in the Eucharistic species. The fact that the cardinal says "only" shows that he believes that God IS present in the Eucharist - but does not negate His omnipresence.
Caminus, perhaps you can clarify the part in italics for me - does it seem okay to you? This is, of course, a translation, but it may be completely okay and I am just not familiar with the way he is putting it.