It is so very easy to claim a miracle occurred.

In this case, there needs to close scrutiny of the evidence and verification of the credentials of the all involved (doctors, scientists and priests) and the equipment used to make the analysis of the Host.

If Novus ordo missae words are used for the Consecration, spoken by an invalidly ordained priest, how could he confect the Sacrament?

Sean will tell us "some" grace is comes from the Novus ordo missae, but he's knows, he's just blowing smoke.

Another a-theological conjecture.

Whether or not these particular “miracles” are authentic or not isn’t really the issue for you or Lad.

What you are really objecting to is even the mere possibility that they could be authentic.
Whatever homemade arguments you cook up come a priori to any particular miracle:

To your minds they MUST be false, and we can come up with the reasons why after the fact.

But whatever they will be, they will not be theological.  They will just be the inventions of inept commentators.

Another a-theological conjecture.

Right, it's one conjecture against another ... which boils down to "this proves absolutely nothing."  You would pretend that it proves that the NOM is valid but not that it's good.  Someone else might argue that this proves that the NOM is both valid and acceptable to God.  Church's attitude towards miracles has always been one of skepticism.  There's always the possibility of fraud ... either of human or of diabolical origin.  If you don't think that the devil can pull off a fake miracle, then next you'll tell me that David Copperfield's cause for canonization should be opened because he made an airplane disappear.

If both the Argentina and Lanciano eucharistic miracles could be proven to have the same DNA, and if both miracles had the same blood type as the dried blood on the Shroud of Turin, this would prove that the Novus Ordo --- or at least the particular Novus Ordo Mass in which the Argentina miracle occurred --- is valid.  Even Archbishop Lefebvre admitted that the NO is a "valid sacrilege" (his words, not mine).  It would be interesting to know whether the priest who consecrated the Eucharist in the Argentina miracle was ordained according to the traditional rite or the new rite.

Very likely he was ordained in the new rite by a bishop who was consecrated according to the new rite.

As with so many matters theological, you are wrong, Sean.  You do nothing but emote and shoot from the hip.  Never would the Church approve a private revelation purportedly given to a heretic, since the Church knows that God would not work a miracle that could be construed as an endorsement of their heresy.

The Church recognizes the apparitions of Our Lady at Zeitun. The first person to see her was a Muslim. I don't think she did that to affirm the Islamic heresy.

Ah, yes, this day Sean and poche have become allies and the best of friends.  poche regularly spams an article on CI about this purported miracle.

I posted this because I want to promote belief in the real presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist.

It makes perfect sense that Hod would perform a Eucharistic miracle in the Novus Ordo, not to bless/endorse the rite, but to reaffirm the dogma of transubstantiation which that rite attacks (same as it makes perfect sense there are no Eucharistic miracles at the TLM, where affirmation in the belief in transubstantiation is explicit).

There also exists a loose analogy to Marian apparitions, which were few during the first 1500 years of the Church:

When it was on solid footing, warnings were not needed, but after the Protestant rebellion, they became more numerous.

God sends help to the sick, not the healthy who have no need of it.

I really don’t know why this notion that if God performs a Eucharistic miracle, it can only be interpreted as an endorsement of the Novus Ordo.  Whomever that false interpretation resonates with does not understand God’s modus operandi.

As for the effect such Novus Ordo miracles would have on Catholics, it would be exactly the OPPOSITE of that desired by the devil:

To fortify faith In transubstantiation which the devil wanted to kill with the rite.

Would you feel the same way if there was a "miracle" in the schismatic, Orthodox Church?