CathInfo.com

Funny how there’s been a push to validate the NO “mass” recently. I wonder why?

I have not seen any "push to validate the NO 'mass' recently" as the above story is shown by Non Possumus to demonstrate that God can work a miracle during a (not all) Novous Ordo mass.

After reading this account, I have very little doubt as to this miracle's authenticity.

Pffft.  I don't even trust that the article is true and not completely made up.  Ever hear of "fake news"?  You guys believe everything you read on the Internet and base theological conclusions on it?

Let's assume for a moment that there was indeed heart tissue in the host, eh?  What would prevent the devil from obtaining said tissue and putting it in place, hmmm?

Answer:  Nothing.

That's why the Church uses the context to help determine authenticity ... e.g. the orthodoxy and the personal virtue of those involved with it.

And God perhaps allowed the devil to do this to test the faith of people like yourselves regarding your own convictions regarding the Mass.  Hint:  you're failing.  Quo vadis is absolutely correct.  If this is in fact an authentic miracle performed by God ... then you have no choice but to accept the fact that God approves of the Novus Ordo Mass.  But I know that God does not approve of it.  Therefore, the miracle must be false, likely diabolical in origin.  See how the CHURCH would reason it out?  You START with Catholic principles and THEN make inferences about the miracle.  You do not start with a miracle and draw principles from IT.

Would you guys like to buy a bridge in Brooklyn from me?  I'll post a link on the internet and give you a good price.  

I find that men are so emotional in response to the issue of Eucharistic miracles transpiring from within conciliar environs, that it is almost pointless to address their sophistries, so this will be my only shotgun response to all the above:

1) No miracles are possible at a NOM: If the Mass is valid (and only sedes allege the per se invalidity of the NOM; certainly no Resistance or SSPX theologians do), then a miracle is already present at every valid NOM, via the miracle of transubstantiation.  Consequently, there are really only two choices available to the sophists: Change their positions to allege the per se invalidity of every NOM, or, acknowledge that since miracles are present at every valid NOM, the principle that Eucharistic miracles are not possible, lest it infer God's promotion of the NOM, is false.

2) A Eucharistic miracle at the NOM would mean God is promoting the NOM: Sheer nonsense and pure imagination!  It is human sophistry to box God into that position.  As I argued in the Catechetical Refutation, God can intervene to bolster the faith -in his mercy- of those whose faith in transubstantiation is under seige from the very rite which implicitly denies it.  God by intervening in the form of a Eucharistic miracle is combating the Novus Ordo, not promoting it.

3) Maybe the devil did it: A negative doubt is not a reasonable doubt.  Those who advance this theory do so with no evidence behind it.  Their ill disposition is one which prejudices them against the evidence, and to seek for rebuttals without any positive doubt whatsoever (and without any analysis of the evidence).

4) Since the priests are not priests (or the Mass is not valid), it is impossible for there to have been a eucharistic miracle: Let's say for the moment it were true that the priest was invalidly ordained, and consequently, the "Eucharist" was not validly confected.  Would it stand to reason, therefore, that God could not work a miracle in the bread?  No.  God could make a Pepsi can, pumpkin, brick or thin air bleed if it suited His purposes.  Which is all another way of saying, the issue of validity is entirely besides the point.  If God so chose to directly intervene and place his substance into what was bread, there is no theological (or other) argument which impedes us from accepting He could do so.  

In short, this made-up notion that a Eucharistic miracle in a NOM somehow necessarily means that God is promoting that rite is ridiculous.

The good fruits (e.g., increase in faith and fervency in devotion to the Eucharist) stemming from this miracle show that it is not a prodigy of the devil (Does the devil bear good fruit, and bolster faith in transubstantiation??), but very probably a true miracle of God.

We must not let our opposition to the NOM (and I have not attended one in 20 years, nor would I advise anyone to do so except in the most unusual or extreme circuмstance) blind us to the possibility that God is God, and He is perfectly able to interject Himself into a NOM consecration as an act of mercy to combat the faithlessness of that rite, and restore the faith of His sheep.

I have no objection to people exercising a prudent reserve in the matter (I myself hold out the possibility it could all be illegitimate, but the evidence points toward the opposite conclusion).