CathInfo.com

+W and others jumped to many illogical conclusions with these "miracles".  Even if they were miracles, it doesn't mean that God approves of the new mass; it just means that *some* of the consecrations are valid and Our Lord is present. 

For the 4,000x, a valid consecration DOES NOT EQUAL a pleasing, holy new mass.  I don't understand why so many Trads can't accept this. 

If these "miracles" were legit, it's more likely that God was giving one last gasp of "faith" to those in the new church, who have all but lost their faith in most everything, including his Real Presence.

God answers the prayers of protestants all the time.  Does this mean He approves of protestantism?  Of course not.

And a eucharistic miracle does not mean He approves of the new mass.  It would simply mean that *some* valid consecrations are still taking place.

So, firstly, I don't see where +Williamson concluded anything other than that the NOM can be valid, i.e. that the Rite did not intrinsically invalidate the Mass.

But I disagree with concluding that the miracles even might be genuine ... where you say, IF they're genuine, then "it just means".  You can't assume or even accept that premise without the Church's judgment, and the default Catholic position is they're fake unless the Church determines otherwise (and even then you're not required to accept them).  So there's zero conclusion to be made.

Finally, I disagree in that it's not at all unreasonable to draw the conclusion that God might not be completely displeased with the NOM if He works a miracle, since the thinking is, "Well, why would God give people the impression that it might not be displeasing to Him by working miracles?"  That's an easy speculation to make.

Consequently, if the Mass displeases God, there's no way He would give people that impression.  Since the Mass displeases God, those miracles were fake (either not miracles of diabolical trickery).  As it turns out, there's increasing evidence that the red coloration was due to mold growth.  So much for jumping to conclusions while accepting them as genuine.

So, let me ask you this.  Have you ever heard of a genuine / proven Eucharistic miracle taking place among the Orthodox?  We know that their Liturgy / Mass is valid, so, since that's all that God is trying to communicate with miracle, why not, right?  Well, the why not is because it might give the impression to people that Orthodoxy is pleasing to or at least not completely unacceptable to God.  I researched it ... looking even on Orthodox forums.  I've seen no evidence whatsoever anywhere of Eucharistic miracles taking place among the Orthodox.

Does this constitute solid proof that God would not work a miracle during a Mass that displeases Him?  No, not hard proof ... but it's not at all unreasonable to draw that inference from it, and God would not mislead or confuse souls that way.  ERGO, God would not work a miracle for a Liturgy / Mass that displeases Him.  ERGO, the NOM does not dispelase God.

Except we know that it does, for theological and doctrinal reasons.  We therefore conclude the purported miracles are fakes (either with a natural explanation or a diabolical artifice).  Let's say the SSPX et al. are wrong and the NOM is intrinsically invalid.  Well, if I'm the devil, I want people going to invalid Masses.  So let's fake some miracle to give people the impression that it's valid, since that would mean it's valid ... per your reasoning.