Eucharist miracles post Vatican II?

Have there been any Eucharistic Miracles in the age of Vatican II? I have an In-law that is very strongly SSPX and has expressed some opinions that the Novus Ordo isn’t Catholic. More like Protestantized Catholicism and all this stuff like “the mass isn’t licit”, and that he refuses to attend a Novus Ordo if he is not able to attend his SSPX services. I discussed with him that even though he doesn’t like the Novus Ordo, he must still attend Saturday
Night/ Sunday mass to fulfill his obligation under pain of sin. I say this out of concern for his soul. He comes back with “my priest said that I’m not obliged to attend the new mass” . Honestly makes me really mad. I understand that a lot of traditional Catholicism has been pushed aside to make for more modern things since VII, and a lot of the negative things of that nature. I prefer the Latin mass and traditional Catholicism and I believe the church was holier place pre VII, but I acknowledge and accept the Church in all her decrees and she has declared Novus Ordo to be valid and licit. Anyway I’d like some examples of verifiable Eucharist miracles to show to him that truly Christ is present here in the Church and in the Novus Ordo. And possibly some advice about how to approach this topic with him again? I know that it’s a touchy subject.

Yes actually there have been a few of them that are post Vatican II. However as the Church is very careful with Miracles it always takes a while for Her to approve them as such. Remember when the Church approves a Miracle is telling the faithful that it is worthy of consideration. In other words the trust of The Church is at stake and She rightly takes it as diligently as it should.
A couple of links might help you in your quest:


1 Like

As for the SSPX claims that the Church went into apostasy after V II there is only 1 simple answer to that.
In other words they are claiming that Jesus is a liar.
His words are meaningless.
When HE said in Matthews 16:18 And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. He lied, The gates of hell did prevail against it and won.



Here is a post I posted on another thread:

There is a subtitled YouTube video done by the scientist who did the investigation on the Buenos Aires Eucharistic miracle:

This is actually one part of a series of videos. YouTube videos used to be limited in length to about 10 minutes, so longer videos were cut up into 10-minute lengths. They were connected, so they would automatically play one after the other.

Now, search results show the parts mixed in with other videos, and not labeled so as to be watched in order. This may be a fault caused by years of updating, or may be the result of the original set being taken down and only copied videos left.

However, this one is good on its own.

1 Like

Yeah, tons.

Miracle Hunter website has a list by date. Simply click the links for the appropriate time windows and see all the ones that happened after Vatican II.

The three Buenos Aires miracles in the 1990s were a biggie because of the scientific testing that was done.

1 Like

They’re international. They were founded in France and Switzerland. The founder was French and the former Superior General of the Spiritans aka Holy Ghost Fathers, a missionary order of priests and lay people. He was also a leader of the conservative faction during Vatican II.

So no, SSPX is not an “American phenomenon”. Nor is it particularly associated with English speaking countries.


Be advised that the SSPX defends the validity of Eucharistic miracles occurring during non-traditional Masses (as seen here, for example), making this line of argumentation unlikely to sway your in-law.

1 Like

Maybe just don’t?

1 Like

That’s not true at all. If and I mean If, the Vatican II church is a new and separate religion as some claim, than the true church would persist with various traditional Sedevacantist groups who hold to the church as it was at the passing of Pius XII. Since the true church would still exist in that state, then the gates of hell have not prevailed against it. Granted, it would be much smaller, but it’s prophesied to be much smaller when Christ returns anyway. Wouldn’t a pope promoting idolatry at St. Peter’s be a bigger sign of the gates of hell prevailing? I’m not saying this is what happened, but am merely playing devil’s advocate to look at all sides.

1 Like

If Christ allowed all but 1,000 people to fall into heresy with Vatican II, that makes him a liar which also makes him not the Son of God or the Messiah. Which means we are all doomed.

1 Like

Setting aside the issue of Vatican II and sedevacantists (of which, in any case, there are far more in the world than 1,000), the fact remains that there must be a consequential falling away at some point before the Second Coming, for, “When the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?” (Lk. 18:8).

1 Like

The SSPX makes no such claim. What they say is that the Second Vatican Council was by its own declaration not dogmatic, but pastoral, and therefore need only be followed in matters which do not conflict with the foregoing magisterium.

1 Like

There are two parts to the issue here; first, whether the Church “went into apostasy” after Vatican II, and second, whether the SSPX holds to this position.

It is impossible for the entire Church to “go into apostasy”; while it is possible for a large number of Catholic individuals—including members of the hierarchy—to apostatize, the Mystical Body of Christ herself can never be destroyed. “By [indefectibility] is signified, not merely that the Church will persist to the end of time, but further, that it will be preserved unimpaired in its essential characteristics” (1917 Catholic Encyclopedia). While it is undeniable that there are problems, liturgical and doctrinal, that have arisen after Vatican II, it is not possible for any of the essential attributes of the Church to disappear; if we are, as you say, to believe the words of Our Lord in Matt. 16:18, then we must hold that the Church remains unchanged in her essential attributes both before and after Vatican II.

While the hypothetical scenario described by the poster Bataar is theoretically possible, we must conclude that at this point and time, in practical reality, sedevacantism is not a viable solution. While long interregnum periods have happened in the past, it is impossible for the entire Ecclesia docens (the hierarchical episcopate) to disappear. The hierarchy and its jurisdiction are essential attributes of the Church and must persist until the end of time. If there has been no pope since 1958, then the entire hierarchy would no longer exist, since there are no longer any bishops canonically appointed by Pius XII. Thus, sedevacantism in its modern form would contradict the indefectibility of the Church and imply that Our Lord lied in Matt. 16:18, as the gates of hell would have prevailed.

Sedevacantism may not seem relevant to the discussion here, as the SSPX strongly opposes the theory. But why does the SSPX unequivocally reject sedevacantism? For precisely the reasons outlined in my preceding paragraph, because the disappearance of the entire Ecclesia docens would render the indefectibility of the Church a farce. If the SSPX so strongly opposes denial of the indefectibility of the Church, and takes this doctrine so seriously, then how could it claim that the “entire Church has apostatized”, which would likewise contradicts this doctrine?

The issue is settled, then: first, the Church has not apostatized, and can never apostatize, even if a large number of Catholics were to personally fall away, and second, the SSPX does not believe that Church has apostatized as a result of Vatican II. Of course, you may disagree with the SSPX’s views, but misrepresenting their entire ecclesiological position is not conducive to having a reasonable discussion on the matter.


The headquarters of the SSPX are located in Menzingen, Switzerland, where German is the primary language, not French. Other than Europe and the United States, the SSPX is also active in Africa, Asia, and Australia. A list of current districts and autonomous houses (districts in formation):

Almost all members and adherents are strongly anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim and anti-LGBT

Catholics are free to have political opinions, as long as those opinions are in line with Church teaching. There is nothing wrong, according to Church teaching, with the State’s responsibility to protect its borders, and we are actually obliged to oppose false religions and ideologies. I’m not sure what you’re trying to accomplish by bringing up the political views of SSPXers; it is true that most tend to hold to similar political views due to their shared faith, but political issues are not the primary purpose of the SSPX.

In the US, a smaller proportion of members and attendees are as strongly ideologically radical as in Europe

Michael Davies explains in Apologia:

“In France political feeling tends to be more polarized, more extreme, and far more deeply felt than in England. …Since the [Second World] war, and especially since Vatican II, the official French Church has veered sharply to the left. …Thus, a large proportion of right-wing Catholics was predisposed to support any religious movement opposed to the policies of the French hierarchy. The political views of some of the French Catholics who support the Archbishop would certainly be odious to many English-speaking traditionalists – although such views are more understandable (if not acceptable) within the French context. However, if they wish to support the Archbishop (and not necessarily for the right reasons) there is nothing he can do about it. …The French hierarchy has replaced [Catholic] social teaching with diluted Marxism to such an extent that anyone adopting the Catholic position is now automatically accused of fascism.”

This is a “French thing,” not an “SSPX thing.” A man who is religious naturally lets his religion inform his politics, and this is more noticeable in France than the US, where political sentiment is more acutely felt. But the “daily bread” of the SSPX is religion, not politics. Abp. Lefebvre was aware that many French Catholics were supporting the SSPX for the wrong reasons, and this a phenomenon mostly restricted to France and some other countries due to their recent political history.

Context is important, so it would be wrong to dump it on the SSPX. While the views of many conservative French Catholics may seem radical to us, they might be completely understandable in the context there. In today’s culture, almost anyone who deviates from liberalism in France will be accused of being a “fascist.” I don’t live there, but I do know that throwing around buzzwords without understanding their meaning is a real problem in worldwide politics. Perhaps @J_Reed can contribute here.


The SSPX is not “split in two”; rather, the so-called “Resistance” is a completely separate group which has, frankly, more in common with sedevacantists. Confusing the SSPX with the Resistance has had disastrous consequences in the past; in 2009, there were many reporters, lawyers, and Jewish protesters showing up at American SSPX chapels on Sundays for the purpose of harassing the people there. It is very telling that this half of the story is never told…

Further, Bp. Williamson’s expulsion from the SSPX was not, in fact, due to his anti-semitism or Holocaust denial. While those two things first made the SSPX’s leadership aware of his radical beliefs, the eventual break occurred for theological reasons, not political. Bp. Williamson held to erroneous ecclesiological views (refuted by an SSPX priest here), and as a result of those erroneous views, began refusing submission to then-Superior General Bp. Fellay out of disagreement with the Society’s willingness to dialogue with Rome.

It is true that many members who were expelled from the SSPX for anti-semitism eventually joined the Resistance, but the battle cry of the Resistance is not opposition to the Jews, but opposition to dialoguing with Rome. Again: theological, not political.

…anti-semitism remains common although they try to tone it down so as not to scare off their American financial supporters.

If you can make this odious remark with such confidence, permit me to ask a few questions. Who are “they”? And who is “toning down anti-semitism”? And how do you know that the reason for this “toning down” was money? If you cannot provide proof this, I recommend avoiding rash judgment.

Look, there have been problems with certain anti-semitic individuals that have hidden in the SSPX in the past. But one would be very petty-minded to forget that the SSPX has done a very good job in the past several years expunging these radicals from their ranks. And in the aftermath of the establishment of the Resistance, the SSPX lost under 2% of its membership. A large number of Catholics in the United States support abortion, but it would be ridiculous for me to say, “The Catholic Church is pro-abortion.” Likewise, that 2% of the SSPX’s membership was made up of secret political radicals does not make “The SSPX is anti-semitic” a logical statement.

What constitutes actual anti-semitism (criticizing Judaism or rejecting its beliefs is not anti-semitism) could be a topic for an entirely separate thread, but I’ll simply leave you with this:


One has taken place in Essex Uk last month.

Blood on the Eucharist from the Holy tabernacle.

It will be the 1st time ever recording in the Uk. It has been sent off to be certified and tested.

I will keep you up dated.

Never before in England such a miracle has been witnessed. A tiny Catholic Church In South Essex.

The Arch Bishop and Pope are very excited by all accounts.

Only 3.6 % of earths population has AB blood type just as Jesus had.

This topic was automatically closed after 2 days. New replies are no longer allowed.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit