A fellow parishioner mentioned this to me today.  I don't have the exact quote, but I remember JPll said something like "Christ miracles don't prove His divinity."  It's still amazes me after reading todays Gospel where Christ tells John followers how the blind see, etc., proving His divinity to them.

Your fellow parishioner is correct.  Miracles do not prove divinity because saints have performed miracles and they are not divine.  The Old Testament also speaks of Moses going up against Pharaohs priests who performed the same miracle that Moses performe, having sticks turn into snakes.  So even the dark side can produce what appears to be miracles.  In our own time, the demonic Jim Jones seemed to have performed enough miracles to get 900 people to believe he was divine and drink his bitter cup of CoolAid.  

In short, miracles are nothing more than attention getters.  They point to divinity and do not prove divinity.  Further analysis is required.  Paul himself said as much when he wrote that if Christ did not rise from the dead, Christians are the most pitiful of fools for believing in His divinity.  In other words, Christ’s miracles of healing the sick, the deaf, the blind (referenced in the gospel reading regarding St. John), and even raising the dead did not qualify as the kind of miracle that PROVED His divinity. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani Who is Not a JPII Apologist

Christ's miracles are a proof of His divine mission:

“In order to prove His divine mission Christ performed many historical and divine miracles, and proclaimed many prophecies. … Christ’s miracles were performed as a proof of His divine mission” (Tanquerey, A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, vol. I, sec. 112, p. 72; sec. 118, p. 75).

Correct, He claimed to be God, and showed that God was with Him by performing miracles, so that He should be believed.

I see now why you didn't last long at FE.  

I mean that in a good way.

I have a shot at a reasoned response, but I can't type it now.

So I understand you to disagree with my understanding on the basis of your appeal to “A Manual of Dogmatic Theology.”  That would be your appeal to authority.  I did not make an authoritative argument but a reasoned argument.[/b]

Article 4. Whether the miracles which Christ worked were a sufficient proof of His Godhead?

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4043.htm#article4

Albert Cipriani,
It is not out of the question to appeal to authority when the discussion at hand concerns the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

The Church herself makes use of both positive (Scripture, Fathers - authoritative) and speculative (reasoned) methods in the science of theology.  What's more, with regard to my particular quotes, the first statement was actually in the form of a thesis, so it'd be hard to be taken out of context.

As for a reasoned argument concerning the matter at hand, miracles done by other men were performed only with the help of or permittance by God, whereas the miracles performed by Christ were done by His own power.  And what's more, He communicated this power to others who performed miracles in His name.  None of the people in your examples performed miracles in their own name.  I would agree with you, however, that the acts themselves should be analyzed to determine their preternatural or divine nature.