Provide the surrounding context please.

I know, "Raoul" had the same problem.

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.

Oh - and the sede site spells the title of the book wrong too - not a good start.  It is actually "Die Sacramentale Begrundung Christliche Existenz".

I'm not sure what context would make such a quote Catholic.

Really?  So you believe that God is present ONLY in the Blessed Eucharist and is not omnipresent?

Caminus said:

I don't think he was intending to deny the dogma of the real presence. In fact, he affirmed it at one point. Rather, he was laboring at another point, strained though it may have been

That's Modernism 101.  They say heresy, and the next day they are orthodox.  Then it's back to heresy, and so on and so forth.  This leads to a kind of cycle of abuse, a form of Stockholm Syndrome among Catholics, that you can clearly see among the victims of SSPX at AngelQueen.  One moment they're bewailing Ratzinger's appointment of Levada to head the CDF, or they're mocking his ludicrous existential-New-Age-pseudo-Catholic blather, and then the next they're praying for the Holy Father to save the Church.  They're in deep denial.
 
Pascendi Domenici Gregis:

"Further, none is more skilful, none more astute than they, in the employment of a thousand noxious arts; for they [ Modernists ] double the parts of rationalist and Catholic and this so craftily that they easily lead the unwary into error; and since audacity is their chief characteristic, there is no conclusion of any kind from which they shrink or which they do not thrust forward with pertinacity and assurance."