Look at who they use to confirm its "authenticity", scientists!, the same scientists who incorrectly date the Shroud as well as deny other true Catholic miracles.
Science cannot determine those dimensions of said miracles which are metaphysical and supernatural by measuring the physical properties of substances.
Gullible men are all to eager to credit such things as true. Father Pfeiffer was right when he said that miracles come from God to confirm the Truth, Catholic truth.

Who are we to believe in such things, Novus Ordo clerics?

.
I'm not convinced you can so accurately blame the scientists. On the face of it, they are only working with what they are given, even if they have no faith. It is claimed the scientists were not told where the samples came from, and while it wasn't spelled out, such labs get samples every day from detectives and law enforcement, looking for credible evidence they can use in court and such. So as far as the scientists ostensibly knew, it was just another day at the office, so to speak.
.
The thing that seems to be missing though, is they didn't mention if they asked the scientists how OLD the samples were. If it were a court case, the age since death would have been of primary concern. Maybe the lab report wasn't adequately relayed in the story. Maybe the lab report DID say what the age was and maybe that data point wasn't convenient for the story. A lot depends on who is reading and interpreting the lab report.
.
But one thing is for sure. When Jorge Bergoglio "approved" the "miracle" it would seem he was not worried whether it could have been a hoax. It seems as though he was happy enough with the results THIS TIME. If there had been two previous "attempts" at "getting the miracle to work" as the description in my previous post above says there were, that puts Bergoglio in the thick of it, and then we have something else to wonder about: was he elected at the conclave because he had managed to pull off this big boost that promotes Vat.II with a so-called miracle that compares so well side-by-side to the miracle of Lanciano, of all things? (Nobody questions Lanciano -- but all they had to do was get all the same tests to succeed using Lanciano as the blueprint for success!)
.
The Scripture quote 2Vermont supplied sure looks like a slam dunk. I wish I had come up with that one!  :cheers:

Aw shucks.  

If you open the first 2015 link I posted above it is interesting that I posted that this was the same Gospel reading of that day. Coincidence?

Aw shucks.  

If you open the first 2015 link ? I posted above it is interesting that I posted that this was the same Gospel reading of that day. Coincidence?

.
No, really! You deserve an award! That was great work! You just went down in history! We could refer back to this for years to come! 
.
Now if you could explain what you mean by the second sentence, that would be nice. What "first 2015 link?" 

.
And another thing!
.
The Sunday you're pointing at was the 24th and Last Sunday After Pentecost in the traditional calendar, Nov. 22nd, 2015.
That year, Thanksgiving Day (USA) was Thursday, November 26th.
Sunday, November 29th, was the First Sunday of Advent, 2015.
.
Very interesting history in that: The Novus Ordo calendar almost never has the same Gospel, nor do they call that Sunday by the same name. In the change after 1962 when they came out with the new A, B and C cycles, the Gospel of Matthew from chapter 24 was only read once in 3 years, and they read it on a Sunday that was no longer referred to as the 24th after Pentecost because they said "Sundays in Ordinary Time," whatever that's supposed to mean. (The Ordinary of the Mass was no longer called that, either.)
.
Matthew 24 is ALWAYS read for the Gospel on the 24th and Last Sunday after Pentecost, every year. The only way it would be displaced in the traditional calendar would be if a MOVABLE FEAST of high rank were to fall on that day, and there are no movable feast days near that time on the calendar. In the 1962 updated calendar of John XXIII (which the 1962 Missal uses BTW, including CMRI who don't recognize John XXIII as a real pope -- go figure!) all the Sundays of the year always get John 1:1-14 read for the Last Gospel, however, in the traditional calendar, a displaced Gospel would be read as the Last Gospel instead of John 1:1-14 at the end of Mass, so you would still hear the Gospel of that Sunday even when it was displaced.
.
The Gospel in question is one of the parts of the Bible where the Novus Ordo facilitators would prefer we forget all about them.
.
Here is a great explanation for why Newchurch doesn't like Matthew 24: it warns us about the coming of Newchurch!
.
Thank you, 2Vermont, for bringing this into clear focus! Thank you, Thank you, Thank you!!!

.
I finally figured out what you mean by EM, I thought it was Extraordinary Minister. (meaning extraordinary eucharistic minister)
.
Now, After reading a few pages from the 2015 liked thread, I see it had been Eucharistic Miracle. But I have seen EM used for Extraordinary Minister many times. Think about it. In Newchurch, EMs are the topic of discussion all the time, and they're not talking about miracles. Furthermore, there is a Resistance website run by a Catholic man who goes by Ecclesia Militans, and many users refer to him as "EM." You have to be careful with abbreviations like this, they can be very frustrating.
.
When Fish Eaters was a topic of discussion it got to be confusing what someone was saying when they wrote FE: it could be read Fish Eaters, instead of flat-earth. Now that FE is practically a dead letter it's not so confusing anymore. 

If the pope sinned in changing the liturgy, by violating Quo Primum, if he called down upon himself the wrath of Sts Peter and Paul, then how can we be sure that the Church was "guided" (I assume you mean "guided by the (Holy) Spirit", as the modernists love to say) in its presenting of the NO to the laity? Does the Holy Ghost "guide" us when we sin?  How can a catholic presume he has God's blessing when he is violating Church law?  

 ----------------> [Actually, what the Modernists loved to say was, guided by "the spirit of Vatican II"]

Doesn't our catechism teach the exact opposite?  Doesn't our Faith teach us that we lose God's grace when we sin?  How can the pope be guided by the Holy Ghost when he's rejecting the Holy Ghost at the same time, through sin, by violating Quo Primum and his predecessor St Pius V?

.
We can be sure the Church was guided by a spirit, but not by the Holy Ghost.
.
We can be sure the Church was guided by the unclean spirit of Vatican II. The unclean spirit of Vat.II.
.
If you don't know what I mean by UNCLEAN SPIRIT then use a search engine and look up all the times it occurs in the Bible.
.
We were told as an answer during the '60s, when all the changes kept on coming, the reason for the changes.
.
Because we could not find the reasons in the docuмents coming out from Vat.II -- it was in progress, or just finished in '65.
.
The reasons were not in the docs., but we were told by our priests and nuns that it was the spirit of Vat.II.
.
They literally explained changes by saying, "This is in accord with the spirit of Vatican II."
.
Such and such was following the Church's authority in the spirit of Vat.II.
.
The reason we were not going to do A anymore and now we'll do B was to be in accord with the spirit of Vat.II.
.
We heard "the spirit of Vat.II" rather as a MANTRA because they kept saying it over and over and over.
.
Someone needs to write a song about this.
.
Later we found out they lied to us.
.
They lied by omission, for they left out one essential word.
.
They should have said, "This is in accord with the unclean spirit of Vatican II." 
.
That would have been honest!
.
That would have been honest to say it was in accord with the unclean spirit of Vat.II, but then there would have been trouble.
.
Catholics would have seen through their deception and it would not have been a good magic show anymore.
.
You see, in a good magic show the audience must be kept unaware of the magician's secrets.
.
Once the audience knows the secret, even one of them, then the magic show flops. And then there is trouble.

.
And another thing!
.
The Sunday you're pointing at was the 24th and Last Sunday After Pentecost in the traditional calendar, Nov. 22nd, 2015.
That year, Thanksgiving Day (USA) was Thursday, November 26th.
Sunday, November 29th, was the First Sunday of Advent, 2015.
.
Very interesting history in that: The Novus Ordo calendar almost never has the same Gospel, nor do they call that Sunday by the same name. In the change after 1962 when they came out with the new A, B and C cycles, the Gospel of Matthew from chapter 24 was only read once in 3 years, and they read it on a Sunday that was no longer referred to as the 24th after Pentecost because they said "Sundays in Ordinary Time," whatever that's supposed to mean. (The Ordinary of the Mass was no longer called that, either.)
.
Matthew 24 is ALWAYS read for the Gospel on the 24th and Last Sunday after Pentecost, every year. The only way it would be displaced in the traditional calendar would be if a MOVABLE FEAST of high rank were to fall on that day, and there are no movable feast days near that time on the calendar. In the 1962 updated calendar of John XXIII (which the 1962 Missal uses BTW, including CMRI who don't recognize John XXIII as a real pope -- go figure!) all the Sundays of the year always get John 1:1-14 read for the Last Gospel, however, in the traditional calendar, a displaced Gospel would be read as the Last Gospel instead of John 1:1-14 at the end of Mass, so you would still hear the Gospel of that Sunday even when it was displaced.
.
The Gospel in question is one of the parts of the Bible where the Novus Ordo facilitators would prefer we forget all about them.
.
Here is a great explanation for why Newchurch doesn't like Matthew 24: it warns us about the coming of Newchurch!
.
Thank you, 2Vermont, for bringing this into clear focus! Thank you, Thank you, Thank you!!!

I am actually surprised that the NO kept these verses at all. 

But you used to go.  And you keep defending it, and saying it's ok to attend, because the Church said it is.



It makes no difference if Pope Benedict wanted to reform the NO, or reform the modernist's version of it...the end result is the same.  The end result is that the NO that was/is being said in 95% of the churches both then AND NOW is deficient.  The "reform of the reform" never truly happened.

Let me give you an example.  Let's say that for 2,000 years every diocese had a beautiful olive tree(s) in the church backyard.  These trees would supply all the olive oil for all the church ceremonies for the year and were a symbolism for the health of the diocese.  These trees were of the utmost purity and 100% organic, having been received from Rome whenever a new diocese was founded.

In the 1960s, the pope planted an orchard of new olive trees that were a hybrid, GMO type.  They were supposed to be more hardy, more resistant to bugs and produce more fruit.  And he issued a decree saying that all dioceses in the whole latin rite world 'could' (but did not have to) use one of his GMO olive trees to plant in their diocese.  All the bishops readily agreed and they all had ceremonies in their dioceses to commemorate the planting of the 'papal olive tree' in the backyard of the church.  (However, in order to plant the "new" tree, they had to dig up the old, vibrant olive trees that were planted all over the yards, in all the dioceses...some of these trees had been there for centuries and were very healthy and very nutritious).  But the bishops told everyone "The pope said we MUST use his new tree (which was a lie), so the people went along with it).

As time went on, people started using the new olives and the oil from the tree, and they were getting sick and wondering why this GMO tree was so sickly looking.  Well, the Bishops would tell their flock that "it's because the soil isn't good.  We need to work on the soil".  Or, "well, this tree isn't meant for this weather, so we need to bring in some experts to solve the problem."  Or some other excuses...even though all the other ORIGINAL olive trees had grown fine and never had any problems.  In other words, there was always a reason the tree wasn't healthy.  "One day", the bishops would constantly say, "we'll get it right."  That day, for 40 years, never came.  Day after day, year after year, the trees all over the world were sick.

Then, 40 years later, new pope was elected and he said that the GMO olive trees which were meant to be shipped all over the dioceses were never planted by the bishops.  What was planted at each diocese was NOT what was from the papal garden.  So, he issued a "reform" of the bad trees, to try to repair the damage.  He sent new soil, issued new guidelines and gardening methods, drew up the exact chemicals that each tree needed to be healthy and prosper.  But still, the new trees did not get better and NEVER resembled the centuries-old, perfect, fruitful and healthy trees that all the dioceses had dug up to begin with.

Moral of the story:  The NO that Pope Paul VI approved never made it to 95% of the dioceses and still hasn't, 50 years later.  This means that the NO in 95% of parishes, in the entire latin world, for the last 50 years, is NOT APPROVED BY THE CHURCH.  And there's no plan for it to ever get there.

Did the Church fail?  No.  Did the Church fail when 95% of the catholic world was an arian heretic in the 300s?  No.  

Don't make excuses for the NO or the people that attend it.  Most of the people in the 1960s who accepted the NO did so wholeheartedly.  I've talked to many of them - they werent' duped, they weren't forced, they weren't blackmailed - most of them wanted the changes.  They were tired of catholicism being "hard"...especially the priests.  The post-war 1950s had softened the masses and the 60s had opened them up to immoral excesses and drugs.  They were spiritually ripe for a loss of faith - and most accepted the false, sickly, new olive trees with full knowledge of their choice.

Those who've grown up in the 80s and 90s have not had a true catholic church to guide them.  However, God had allowed Tradition to grow and flourish since then, as a "sign of contradiction" to those who still attend the NO.  There are many who have found tradition in spite of their not knowing of it.  God grants the truth to those who are open to it.  We can't make excuses for those in the NO; on the contrary, we must tell them THE NO IS WRONG AND SINFUL, so that they will refuse the false mass and accept the True one.  The hybrid olive oil trees need to be burned to the ground.  They can't be fixed.

Pax, I've tried to answer you questions, whether you say I have or not.  So let me ask you a few: When Paul VI employed the NO, was he an heretic?  Before doing it?  After doing it?  Was Paul VI not really pope?