:eek: 
Okay ,you know those things you hear about on tv? Like when statues of the virgin mary cry or bleed or both.Or when certain peole put a rose petal in a bible and the virgin mary is burned into it.or when those elephant starues in india drank milk.Well anyway i was wondering if anything like that has ever really been declared a miracle by those vatican peole
IANAC, but a WAG…
IIRC, in order for a person to be elevated to a saint, a certain number of miracles (two?) have to have happened because of that perspective saint. Since people have become saints, I would guess that the Vatican does recognize those miracles.
How’d I do?
Zev Steinhardt
Thank You Very much Believe it or not but that is exactly what i wanted to hear
However, that does not necessarily mean that any of the things you hear about on TV are recognized by the Vatican as miracles. I don’t think that any of the “Jesus on a tortilla” (or “Mary on a rose petal”) type of things have been declared miraculous (the closest thing to that would be something like the image of the Lady of Guadalupe, but you don’t need to turn your head just the right way and squint to see that one). And I highly doubt that the Vatican sets much stock in the various non-Christian claims of miracles, such as the drinking Hindu statues.
One of the most famous miracle recognized by the Catholic Church happened at Fatima
Here are some other linksthat are suggested by the church (I think).
Maybe Fatima Was the one i heard about that made me think That those Jesus in tortilla things were considerable
And that hindu staue thing was a moment of lapse Because i was watching a show about it at the time of my first postingMost Vatican accepted miracles have to do with people being “cured” of diseases due to intervention of a dead person. For example, someone will have lupus and decide to pray to Mother Teresa to cure her. If they are cured of the disease, it can be attributed to MT. These days the Vatican will ask for medical records to prove that the person did, in fact, have the disease and that they are now cured. Of course, many of these people had been getting proper medical care in parallel with the prayer. Also, various diseases have been known to go into remission on their own.
Haj
also, it has come to the attention of historians that a few saints, although having had miracles attributed to them (perhaps*), did not in fact exist.
Saint Philomena is a questionable one.
Sain Jehosaphat is a corruption of both stories and the pronunciation of buddhist bodhisattvas.
and one more, maybe saint christopher- wasn’t he the fellow who carried the obese baby across the river? okay okay, he wasn’t obese, just very heavy. still, was that christopher?
jb
*i’m not sure how loosy-goosy the rules were when these saints were added to the canon. many times in the past, popular mandate made you a saint.
It’s my understanding that the Church does not recognize as miracles cases where spontaneous recovery from the disease is medically known.
Ex-Catholic here. And yeah, that was St. Chris, who I’m pretty sure has been “decannonized” by the church. Which doesn’t stop some people from carrying St. Christopher medallions around with them on trips, though (he was the patron saint of travelers).
I thought i might just ask one more little question to these people who responded to my question of miracles.
Mother Theresa isnt a saint is she?
MT is not a saint (yet). You have to be dead for some amount of time before you can even be considered (ten years?). There was a large outcry when she died to waive this requirement.
Haj
thanks
FYI - Why Christopher was de-sainted.
BTW, Blueangel, hi, neighbor!
Hi neighbor
Mother Theresa isn’t canonized yet, but she may be a saint. Strictly speaking, a saint is anyone who’s in Heaven, and most folks who believe in Heaven in the first place would probably accept that Theresa is there. Canonization just means that the Church has officially said “We’re officially and positively certain that so-and-so is in Heaven”.