What are you talking about?  Nothing about a "Eucharistic miracle" requires "god"-like powers.  Per your scenario, Satan can simply reuse tissue from the same person for multiple such "miracles" (and likely would to make them more convincing).  And even human beings do genetic engineering right now.  While Satan is not god, the intellects of these fallen angels far surpass our wildest imagination.  So if human beings are capable of genetic engineering, that's probably not even 1% of what the demons can do in that area.

Status disputationis:

1) It was shown, contrary to your contention, that the purpose of a Eucharistic Miracle has nothing to do with God endorsing a liturgical rite, but (per St. Thomas) to promote belief in the Real Presence;

2) You attempted to evade that necessary conclusion by contending that the NOM was not a “Catholic rite” (conflating that term with “Catholic theology”) to conclude that St. Thomas does not apply;

3) After directing you to the CE to show you that a Catholic Rite, as that term is understood by the Church, is nothing more than prayers and ceremonies received and approved by the pope for use in the Church, I further pointed to the example of Archbishop Lefebvre (who led the steering committee on the irrelevant Ottaviani Intervention you keep pointing to) acknowledging that a Catholic can satisfy his Sunday obligation by attending a NOM (a position he could not have taken, we’re the rite not Catholic). 

I further pointed out the exceeding unlikelihood that Lefebvre simply didn’t know what a Catholic rite was, or that he would say Catholics could fulfill their Sunday obligations by attending a non-Catholic rite.

4) The gratuitous and irrational response of your sedevacantist allies was not a theological response, but a statement of fact: that Lefebvre was simply wrong (an assertion without a demonstration).

Because you lack clear thinking, you have conflated a number of indistinct ideas and impressions to arrive at your erroneous position, and resolved a priori to fend off any argument -with willfulness rather than doctrinal argumentation- to the contrary.

I conclude by repeating that your mind lacks the precision to mettle in these matters, but because your mind perceives that assessment as an insult, your pride is triggered, leading to your ignorant obstinacy.

Well, I leave you to it.

From your quote of your post that was included in the response:

Your responses on this discussion are a continuing begging of the question(s): a) is the NO a "Catholic rite," which, as your "3)" highlights, points to the question of whether Paul VI and the rest of them were popes who had to heeded and whose authority was not void per Paul IV's cuм Ex, and their rites could be treated as such (i.e, as void and non-Catholic).

Sure, if you assume Paul VI was not a heretic and a pope whose directives weren't void leaving his mouth or hand, and then make the next logical step from that ASSUMPTION, the NO is a Catholic rite . . . true, you'd be on solid ground.

But the coin is not in your cup - i.e., your begging on the questions hasn't been answered affirmatively, so you're still broke.

As has been explained repeatedly, the CE states a Catholic rite is nothing more that prayers and ceremonies approved for use in the Church, as the NOM was.


PS: Sede arguments are of no use here (Paul VI wasn’t pope; new rite is invalid), since Hewkonians cannot make use of them without departing from Lefebvre’s, and also because they rest upon no authoritative interpretations except those given them by sedes (not by the church) themselves.

Quote from: Jerome on Daniel

". . .And he shall crush the saints of the Most High, and will suppose himself to be able to alter times and laws." The Antichrist will wage war against the saints and will overcome them; and he shall exalt himself to such a height of arrogance (A) as to attempt changing the very laws of God and the sacred rites as well. He will also lift himself up against all that is called God, subjecting all religion to his own authority.

tertullian.org

https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/vatican-council-says-there-will-be-shepherds-'usque-ad-consummationem-saeculi'/msg743306/#msg743306

And in either case, "it's a true, valid, God-given miracle", or "it's of Satanic origin", it gives us something to consider.  And, as I noted, anti-Catholic apologists could use the latter to debunk Lanciano, the liquefying blood of St Januarius, the miracle of the sun at Fatima, indeed, any miracle that, even by implication, asserts that Catholicism is true.

But in the end, our faith is not dependent upon miracles that took place after the time of the Apostles.

Here's a NOM Eucharistic 'Miracle' captured on live TV



Looks like the kind satanic event the Dimond Brothers describe in their 3 hour video on modern magicians

Interesting.  This looks kindof, oh, "creepy" to me.

So it appears to happen during the "Epiclesis" (given his hands over the Host).  It would be interesting to know which Epiclesis he's using.  So the briefer one in Eucharistic Prayers II-IV just asks the Holy Spirit to turn them into the Body and Blood of Christ (albeit after the consecration ... which is also the case in Eastern Rites).

But the epiclesis for Eucharistic Prayer I reads:  "Be pleased, O God, we pray, to bless, acknowledge, and approve this offering in every respect;"

So, if that were the case, are we to take it from this "miracle" that God approves this NOM offering "in every respect"?