How does the church determine what is considered to be a miracle? I never really thought that anyone actually kept track of miracles but I recently learned that Mother Teresa needs to have a certain amount of them accredited to her before she can be given the title of Saint. Is there a list of these deeds publicly available for scientific revue? Who has the final say in the matter? Is there a miracle revue board there in the Vatican? This topic seems ridiculous to me but then again so does all of organized religion. Please enlighten me.
If you want a factual account of the Catholic Church’s system, you should have posted in GQ. In this forum, you’ll get smug assertions that there are no miracles, followed by appeals to faith, followed by angry epistemological debates.
It’s a fairly lengthy and complex process. First, the person must have lived an extroadinarily exemplary Christian life. Mother Theresa definitely falls into this category.
Now, the miracles. She needs two. They don’t necessarily have to be performed during her earthly life. What happens is, someone asks her for intercessory prayer on their behalf. Say someone is seriously ill, the doctors say “Nothing we can do”, and they ask Mother Theresa to pray for them, wham, bang, they’re cured, suddenly, without medical intervention. The doctors call it “spontaneous remission”. The Church investigates the case, and if it is satisfied that there is no earthly explanation for the cure, it is declared a miracle.
Hope that helps.
Note that “the Church” here equals the Roman Catholic Church. It and it alone expects proof of three miracles to declare someone a saint.
The consensus opinion of people who have known a deceased holy person, reviewed by hierarchy (bishops etc.), is a rough summary of how Eastern Orthodox recognize saints. (One of our Orthodox members can expand and correct that – it’s intended only as a rough cut.) Similarly, in the Episcopal Church, petitions to General Convention calling for someone to be added to the Calendar of Saints get voted on, and a majority vote lands the person on that on the anniversary of his/her death. I believe a similar procedure applies elsewhere in the Anglican Communion.
In general, Protestants do not recognize big-S Saints as distinct from the idea that all Christians are saints, other than the Twelve Apostles, Paul, Mark, and Luke in some denominations. (I don’t have a clue what Lutherans do.)
Actually, only 2 miracles are required. Not only that, they have to have taken place after death, in the form described by Thea Logica.
The term miracle itself is a theological term that is defined (In the Catholic sense, since this is apparently what the OP is talking about) right here.
Beatification and Canonization, the names given to the process of recognizing Saints, is further defined here, , once again in excruciating detail.
Chau
just like that, damn near 12 years later (sorry for the zombie revival!!), the Pope will be canonization Mother Teresa after confirming her second miracle
cite (b/c it’s great debates?)
http://www.msn.com/en-in/news/national/mother-teresa-to-be-made-catholic-saint-next-year-report/ar-BBnGr5Q?ocid=ansmsnnews11
There is actually a book by journalist Randy Sullivan, The Miracle Detective, which delves into the question that the OP asked.
A few decades ago, Father Guido Sarducci on “Saturday Night Live” went on a rant about downgrading the requirements from four miracles to three. The full transcript is available, but here is an excerpt.
A miracle! This thread is arisen!!