So, I just went on Google and looked up RAtzinger and the conference at Fontgombault. Here is a bit of what he said. (of course his words expose you as peddling B.S. and Lies - but that is no surprise given your heresy).
Cardinal Ratzinger; I mention this strange opposition between the Passover and sacrifice, because it represents the architectonic principle of a book recently published by the Society of St. Pius X, claiming that a dogmatic rupture exists between the new liturgy of Paul VI and the preceding catholic liturgical tradition. This rupture is seen precisely in the fact that everything is interpreted henceforth on the basis of the "paschal mystery," instead of the redeeming sacrifice of expiation of Christ; the category of the paschal mystery is said to be the heart of the liturgical reform, and it is precisely that which appears to be the proof of the rupture with the classical doctrine of the Church. It is clear that there are authors who lay themselves open to such a misunderstanding; but that it is a misunderstanding is completely evident for those who look more closely. In reality, the term "paschal mystery" clearly refers to the realities which took place in the days following Holy Thursday up until the morning of Easter Sunday: the Last Supper as the anticipation of the Cross, the drama of Golgotha and the Lord’s Resurrection. In the expression "paschal mystery" these happenings are seen synthetically as a single, united event, as "the work of Christ," as we heard the Council say at the beginning, which took place historically and at the same time transcends that precise point in time. As this event is, inwardly, an act of worship rendered to God, it could become divine worship, and in that way be present to all times. The paschal theology of the New Testament, upon which we have cast a quick glance, gives us to understand precisely this: the seemingly profane episode of the Crucifixion of Christ is a sacrifice of expiation, a saving act of the reconciling love of God made man. The theology of the Passover is a theology of the redemption, a liturgy of expiatory sacrifice. The Shepherd has become a Lamb. The vision of the lamb, which appears in the story of Isaac, the lamb which gets entangled in the undergrowth and ransoms the son, has become a reality; the Lord became a Lamb; He allows Himself to be bound and sacrificed, to deliver us.
* In other words, Ratzinger says exactly the opposite of what you say he said.
For those intersted, I'll post a link to his remarks. As for you and the benefit of your soul, you ought to take the time to read the acutal words of Ratzinger and not how the heretical sspx twists them to confuse their supporters and continue their campaign of lies against the Magisterium, the Mass, and the Council
"In other words, Ratzinger says exactly the opposite of what you say he said"
You are wrong to state this passage deals with what I was talking about--Ratzinger's assertion that the sacrifice of the Mass involved no destruction--or immolation as Trent puts it. I did not claim Ratzinger denied expiation or propitiation. Of course he does not deny this--neither does anybody else in the Novus Ordo Church. They all think what happens at the Novus Ordo is correctly propitiatory. But they interpret propitiation as a transformation, not a destruction--and that is the point of difference. The passage you quote has nothing to do with this insistence by SSPX--and Trent--that what is going on is a real immolation of the Son who took on our sins to appease the Father by dying on the Cross in an act of vicarious substitution. Sin for Ratzinger and for other modern theologians, is something we do to ourselves, not something done to God, so that no actual destruction is necessary. This is the new theology, it is not traditional thinking, and it is not what Trent had stated.
So the b.s. is yours, not mine. So is the ignorance. Here is more of what Ratzinger said: "It is only by grasping that it results from the practical disqualification of Trent, that one can understand the exasperation that accompanies the fight against the possibility of still celebrating Mass according to the 1962 Missal." Trent defined the Mass, but the Novus Ordo--as even Ratzinger admits--is incompatible with that definition.