CathInfo.com

In Plano, Texas, there was a Russian Orthodox monastery run by the ex-Catholic priest, Father Greene who later committed ѕυιcιdє.

He faked a myrrh-bearing icon of the Blessed Virgin Mary to draw boys into his monastery where he would molest them.

Beware of the miraculous.

I have no clue if this miracle is real or not, but even if it is, I don't see how it proves much about the NO besides its basic validity.

1: I don't think the Devil would do this, because, as Sean says, this type of miracle would increase, not decrease, faith in transubstantiation, even if the NO rite itself discourages such faith.

2: I grant that God could do this in the instance of an outright invalid priest (as the Sedevacantists would believe is the case) but it seems unlikely that he would because it would be a form of tricking people, he'd be tricking people into believing the Novus Ordo Eucharist is the true body and blood of Christ when it really is not.

3: I do believe, anywhere on the spectrum of trad opinion that says the NO is still valid, anywhere from the softer "the NO has problems and is imprudent" to the stricter positions of "you should never go to the NO, but some people can still receive graces from it" (As Bishop Williamson I believe has said), I can make sense of this being a valid miracle.  As Sean pointed out, this type of miracle could be God's merciful means of confirming to the faithful the miracle of transubstantiation even if the rite is bad and ought never to be attended by those "in the know."

4: I wonder if the crying madonnas could mean something else, and could perhaps not have been faked.  Not that they'd mean EO is the true Church of Christ, of course, but perhaps Our Mother is mourning the schism?  A Catholic friend pointed out to me a couple years ago that EOs seem to have a disproportionate number of crying madonnas.  I could easily imagine such a thing being real, and pointing away from the EO.

We honestly have no idea, but assuming the article is a truthful account of everything that happened, then:

1:Only the Church can determine if the miracle is a) a fraud, if not then b) from heaven or from hell. All we lay people can do is guess and give opinions - and of course petition Rome to investigate - which these days is futile by any measure.

2: If the priest was invalid, then the whole thing is a fraud. There is no way around this. But the priest could be valid and the whole thing could still be a fraud.

3: As is true for you, me, and all who've condemned and forever abandoned the NO for what it is, God only gives graces to help people take the road toward salvation - which means any graces via this miracle offered by God would be for the purpose of leading people out of the new faith and into the true faith.

God never offers graces in order to keep people on the road to hell, as such, certainly if any graces whatsoever are derived from this alleged miracle or the NO sacrifice of Cain, those graces are only for the purpose of leading individuals to leave the NO, shake the dust from their feet for good, and lead them into the true faith.

4: See #1.    

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_miracle

So now are you going to believe that Pope Leo XIII was wrong about Anglican orders?

I recently learned that the Continuing Anglicans (or at least some of them) get their Holy Orders from Old Catholics.  In which case their orders could be valid.  Leo XIII was absolutely right on the Anglican orders he was talking about though.

(I'm not saying this miracle was legit either, BTW.  I have no idea.)