We all know that God only works miracles in confirmation of the truth, not a confirmation of a falsehood. A miracle in the NO would give legitimacy to the Modernist Conciliar schismatic religion, which Archbishop Lefebvre called a bastard rite.

Completely gratuitous and arbitrary, as explained earlier.

The truth being confirmed is the dogma of the Real Presence.

So, again, that would necessarily mean that it is proof that the NO rite is Catholic and valid.  Why doesn't God perform such miracles in a TLM then....or the Orthodox liturgy for that matter.....if the purpose of the miracle is to confirm the dogma of the Real Presence?

Because God (who comes to heal the sick, not the healthy) has no need of reaffirming belief in the Real Presence for souls at the TLM, but at the NOM, where that dogma is under attack.

Why would those souls leave the NO then?

Has any Trad found Tradition through a NO "miracle"? 

You are asking me to speculate:

Perhaps a real belief in the real presence is the beginning of a journey away from the rite which implicitly denies it?

Given the rarity of these alleged miracles, your sample population would be extremely small, and I don't know anyone who has docuмented the lives of people subsequent to their exposure to the alleged miracles.

So.....there is no proof that these "miracles" actually do bring people to Tradition.  Why do you continue to defend them and Bishop Williamson?  Isn't it possible (and much more probable) that you're just too wedded to Bishop Williamson that you can't see clearly?

The purpose would be to instill faith, in the hopes of saving their souls.

I do not hold the position that all conciliarists are damned (and therefore do not see it as absolutely necessary that the miracles must be false unless it can be shown that all who witnessed them have arrived in Tradition).

As for your commments about being too wedded to +Williamson, I have no doubt you'd like that to be true.  But the fact is that I wrote a study in 2016 which gave doctrinal (not sentimental) reasons for my position.

I would allege, on the contrary, that your obtuseness is predicated on your desire to protect a narrative, and that explains your determination here.

Still no proof that these "miracles" have brought anyone to Tradition.

 

Still no proof God has to subordinate His reasons to your criteria.

Did the Archbishop believe there were NO miracles?

Like transubstantiation?

  No, like the supposed Eucharistic miracles that Bishop Williamson believes are happening in the NO. You know, like the Eucharist turning to actual blood with human blood type?

Besides, transubstantiation isn't technically a "miracle".

In principle, he must have: Transubstantiation has a much more direct relationship to the rite of Mass (being the direct cause of the miracle of transubstantiation) than any other type of miracle would.

I guess changing water into wine at Cana wasn't a miracle either?

Soon, you'll have destroyed the entire Ctholic religion to maintain your enterprise.

So the Catholic Encyclopedia is wrong?:

Again, the justification of the sinner, the Eucharistic Presence, the sacramental effects, are not miracles for two reasons: they are beyond the grasp of the senses and they have place in the ordinary course of God's supernatural Providence.

Archbishop Lefebvre is in the encyclopedia?

PS: The Eucharistic Presence and transubstantiatoin are not the same thing