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.

“For there shall be a time when they will not endure sound doctrine but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables.”

2 Timothy 4

How's this relevant?

There is no way to reconcile the R&R position with a true Eucharistic miracle in a Novus Ordo Mass and still retain traditional Catholic doctrine concerning miracles.  http://newadvent.com/cathen/10338a.htm

If Francis can be wrong about faith and morals, why not Pope Leo?

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.  

You give the devil too much credit.

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.)