Ratzinger is a heretic for countless things he said, wrote and did BEFORE he was ever pope, which he never publicly abjured. 
1) He authored the Vatican lie “revealing” the 3rd secret of Fatima. 
2). Said the new mass and gave communion in the hand countless times. 
3) Was JP2’s right hand man as JP2 prayed with heretics and had the Assisi abomination in 1986.
4) Prayed with rabbis and visited synogogues, putting Catholicism as 2nd fiddle to Joos. 
5). Pushed the “subsists in” heresy to increase heretical ecuмenism. 
6).  Was head of Doctrine as JP2 pushed the “Theology of the body” heresies.
7).  Was a theologian who attended V2 and never apologized for any of such heresies. 
8). He was chief negotiator with +ABL and tried to prevent the 88 consecrations from ever happening.  He’s hated the sspx from day 1.
9).  Consecrated a bishop in 77; we don’t even know if he was a bishop. 
10).  Created the abominable World Youth Days and took part in countless heresies being taught, new mass blasphemies and untold perversions. 

The list goes on and on.  He never apologized for any of the above.  He’s a heretic to the nth degree. 

Not exactly. Ratzinger stated St Lukke was "exaggerating" by having Christ eat the fish. I'd say that might be a bit of a denial of the flesh.

What is radically new about the “theophany” of the risen Lord is that Jesus is truly man: he suffered and died as a man and now lives anew in the dimension of the living God. He appears now as true man and yet as coming from God—as being God himself. So two qualifications are important. On the one hand, Jesus has not returned to the empirical existence tha is subject to the law of death, but he lives anew in fellowship with God, permanently beyond the reach of death. On the other hand, it is important that the encounters with the risen Lord are not just interior events or mystical experiences—they are real encounters with the living one who is now embodied in a new way and remains embodied. Luke emphasizes this very strongly: Jesus is not, as the disciples initially feared, a “ghost” or a “spirit”: he has “flesh and bones” (Lk 24:36-43).

What a ghost is, what is meant by the apparition of the “spirit” as opposed to the apparition of the risen Lord, can best be seen in the bibilcal account of the medium of Endor, who at Saul’s behest conjures up the spirit of Samuel from the underworld (cf. 1 Sam 28:7-19). The “spirit” that she calls forth is a dead man dwelling among the shadows in the underworld, who from time to time can be summoned forth, only to return to the realm of the dead.

Jesus, however, does not come from the realm of the dead, which he has definitively left behind: on the contrary, he comes from the realm of pure life, from God; he comes as the one who is truly alive, who is himself the source of life. Luke underlines quite dramatically how different the risen Lord is from a mere “spirit” by recounting that Jesus asked the still fearful disciples for something to eat and then ate a piece of grilled fish before their eyes.

Most exegetes take the view that Luke is exaggerating here in his apologetic zeal, that a statement of this kind seems to draw Jesus back into the empirical physicality that had been transcended by the Resurrection. Thus Luke ends up contradicting his own narrative, in which Jesus suddenly in the midst of the disciples in the physicality that is no longer subject to the laws of space and time.

I think it is helpful here to consider the other three passages in which the risen Jesus is presented participating in a meal.

Immediately before the text just mentioned is the Emmaus story. It ends with Jesus  sitting down to table with the disciples, taking the bread, giving thanks and praise, breaking the bread, and giving it to the two of them. At this moment their eyes are opened, “and they recognized him; and he vanished out of their sight” (Lk 24:31).
...

[Ratzinger then goes on for pages refuting the wrong interpretation of the "exegetes."]