Comments above in red.

Not so.

I acknowledged a variance in the species of miracles early on (possibly you were not yet part of the conversation).

A miracle is  miracle (be it by the agency of men, angel, or God Himself).

My response is that to remain logically consistent, the Hewkonians should do as you have done (i.e., deny the per se validity of the Montinian rite).

But knowing they would be at odds with +Lefebvre (for whom they pretend to be the last faithful followers), they're trapped by contradiction or paralysis:

Either depart from the teaching of Lefebvre on the NOM, or, remain at enmity with St. Thomas Aquinas regarding the purpose of Eucharistic miracles.

What do you mean by "miracle"? You seem to deny that Satan can perform "miracles."

     Satan can perform prodigies, but not miracles.

I'm not sure what the "Hewkonian" position is. It seems to be that is it that you would not see visible miraculous signs and wonders at a Mass that was "offensive to God and harmful to souls" where there was the Real Presence. I say they are right in that, and agree.

       The Hewkonian contention is that God cannot perform a Eucharistic miracle at the Novus Ordo, because it would imply God's endorsement of the New Mass.  I have cited St. Thomas Aquinas to show that they are wrong (i.e., God doesn't perform miracles to endorse a rite of Mass, but to defend belief in the Real Presence).

Maybe I'm not clear on the dispute between the "Hewkonian" position and the Lefebvre position. I didn't find it in this thread when I skimmed through.

       There are/were two EC threads running simultaneously for awhile.  Anyway, see previous comment.

Was the issue of "miracles" at a Novus Ordo Mass something that Lefebvre ever considered or dealt with?

     Not that I am aware of (which makes the Hewkonian position even more arbitrary, in adddition to their error regarding the purpose of Eucharistic miracles, per St. Thomas).

Seems Sean's position is basically two-fold:

1) Miracles in the NOM could bolster faith in the Real Presence.  Especially since the Real Presence has been under attack - True

2) God can work a miracle at any time, and in any way, He so chooses - True

Therefore, the recent NOM events, which can be counted on two or three fingers, could bolster the faith and might even be real.  He cites Aquinas to support this.

The problem is as follows:
Aquinas presupposes some things:  Namely that you have a real priest doing Calvary in an unbloody manner.

    Lefebvre never declared the NOM or the new rite of priestly ordination per se invalid.  For Hewkonians pretending to be the most faithful followers of Lefebvre, therefore, the possibility of invalidity does not exist for them.  Consequently, your concerns regarding validity do not enter the conversation (as they might for, say, sedevacantists).

1) The Dogma of the Real Presence has been under attack for the last 500 years.  But no one here would believe Eucharistic miracles were being done in an Anglican service.

    Neither is anyone alleging them to occur at Anglican services.

2) The Bastard Missae is inherently flawed, by design, and is not Catholic at all.  I showed this by citing 3 items - the Ottaviani Intervention, Saint Paul VI's original definition, and the Catholic requirements of Form, Matter and Intent.

    And it has been shown back to you ad nauseum that the rite of Masss has nothing to do with why god performs Eucharistic miracles (except to the extent that performin one at the NOM where the real presence is implicitly attacked is perfectly consistent with the reason St. Thomas says God performs them).

I agree with the Aquinas citation when you have a Catholic rite performed by a Catholic priest but according to Catholic definitions, the Bastardo is not Catholic.  It's just a real bastard.

    Please explain the significance: If there has been a transubstantiation (thereby proving the validity of priest and rite), does not your argument implicitly suggest that the Real Presence itself is somehow defective or "less sacrosanct" then the same Real Presence confected at the TLM?

    Note: This is precisely what the Hewkonians believe, when thy suggest such a Eucharist is not capable of transmitting sacramental grace to well-disposed communicants at the NOM, which is flatly heretical, per Trent.

I'll make this my last comment since you bowed out while the going is still good. 

The Hewkonian contention is that God cannot perform a Eucharistic miracle at the Novus Ordo, because it would imply God's endorsement of the New Mass.  I have cited St. Thomas Aquinas to show that they are wrong (i.e., God doesn't perform miracles to endorse a rite of Mass, but to defend belief in the Real Presence).