It's well known that there was a great Eucharistic Miracle in the Catholic Church (among several thousands throughout Church history, see http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/blessed-eucharist1.htm) in Lanciano several centuries ago, in response to a doubting monk's doubts about the Real Presence: http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

"Ancient Anxanum, the city of the Frentanese, has contained for over twelve centuries the first and greatest Eucharistic Miracle of the Catholic Church. This wondrous Event took place in the 8th century A.D. in the little Church of St. Legontian, as a divine response to a Basilian monk's doubt about Jesus' Real Presence in the Eucharist.

During Holy Mass, after the two-fold consecration, the host was changed into live Flesh and the wine was changed into live Blood, which coagulated into five globules, irregular and differing in shape and size."

The Church has always regarded miracles such as that of Lanciano as living refutations of Protestantism, proofs of the Real Presence against doubters, of the supernatural against agnostics and atheists, and of Catholic Truth against all false religions generally. Fr. Mueller cites very many, including some that took place in the reign of Pope St. Gregory the Great, after which a doubting woman converted.

More recently, there have been very similar well docuмented miracles even today, as Bishop Williamson explains, in both the traditional Mass, and even in the new mass. H.E. says this confirms what +ABL had said, that the New mass can be valid. Do you agree?

Please see the sermon for more details: And what about new rite of ordination? Without a valid Priest, a valid Mass is impossible. The SSPX has independent studies docuмenting both the facts that, (1) the new rites are marginally valid, and also (2) mere validity is not enough. Any reasonable theological study will show the same. Validity is one thing, and the Glory given to God, and the Grace available for us, is another. By the Tridentine Mass, a Priest gives the greatest possible Glory to God, and obtains from Heaven the maximum possible graces for us. Therefore, every Priest should make the right and courageous decision to offer the Traditional Mass, while not needlessly exaggerating and saying there are no graces in the New Mass. When there is a valid Consecration, within the Catholic Church, there will be at least some graces, even if those graces are "strangled" there as Bp. Williamson says. Your thoughts on this sermon by Bp. Williamson? Do you agree with the main principle?

So, Bp. Williamson is not Traditional Catholic? You have been living in the mortal sin and public schism of Sedevacantism for some 2 to 3 decades, while having the opportunity to know better, and you'll be dead to Grace, and your soul will be in grave danger of eternal loss, as long as you continue like that, without repenting and confessing that sin of Svism. The SSPX will continue its mission. Both Bp. Fellay and Bp. Williamson, and others like Fr. Gleize and Fr. Laisney, have made some distinctions some of you hotheaded rigorists, like new Tertullian rigorists who want to live and die outside Catholic Communion, are either unable or unwilling to see, or both.

"For example, in the examination that took place on January 11-12, 1979, in response to the questions posed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Lefebvre spoke about the new Mass as follows: “This rite in itself does not profess the Catholic faith as clearly as the old Ordo missae and consequently it may promote heresy....What is astonishing is that an Ordo missaethat smacks of Protestantism and therefore favens haeresim [is promoting heresy] could be promulgated by the Roman Curia.”1 You will note that all his words are carefully weighed: “not...as clearly as”; “may promote”; “smacks of Protestantism”; “favens, promoting.” These are the words of a wise man, the words of a man who pays attention to what he says. Archbishop Lefebvre also said: “I never denied that these Masses said faithfully according to the Novus Ordo were valid; nor did I ever say that they were heretical or blasphemous.”2 Careful, therefore! Let us be firm, but let us not be simplistic." http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=3501

I agree entirely with Bp. Fellay and Bp. Williamson, with Fr. Gleize and Fr. Laisney. Too bad if you don't want to make these distinctions.

And you are entirely in disagreement with Pope Francis about the canonical status of the Society, as proven umpteen times to you.

So, Bp. Williamson is not Traditional Catholic?

Use your brain, man, if you have one.  I say you're not a Traditional Catholics for others reasons, and not simply because you happen to believe in the Novus Ordo so-called Eucharistic Miracles.

1.  The conciliar church has motivation for introducing new "miracles"...$ from pilgrimages and books.
2.  The conciliar church did not adequately, independently, nor publically, investigate this event.
3.  The conciliar church accepted this miracle as real, impulsively, without the long-standing Church attitude of only accepting miracles after science has failed to provide an explanation.

And from my perspective, it's doubtful whether they have the authority to pronounce on these matters (or any authority whatsoever).

Satan can perform the miracles to decieve people into thinking the Novus Ordo isn't harmful and is a oasis of graces. It's a ruse.

If the New Rite is valid, you should be attending it rather than the unapproved masses said by priests with no ministry in a society with no canonical status. To do the latter while recognising the former is schism.

Unfortunately, the operative word here is IF

It was addressed to Xavier, who accepts it as valid.