Skip to main content

The Day Jeter Was A Cardinal

Read the whole thing. And then stay with me. I don't remember the day now, but I was there. Third game, when the Yanks were in town. We took the Metro. There was a father and son together. Yankee fans. Grown. No fan of the Cardinals can really hate the Yankees, if you think about it. We are the Yankees, for so many other teams.

That conversation was genial, in the way that only fans of The Game's two greatest franchises understand. I said jokingly, "I know I'm supposed to hate the Yankees, but how can I, with the quality of the guys on your club?" I stated plainly, "We had to see Jeter."

And the look between me and the older man could only be described as deep understanding and respect. This is the city of Stan the Man; we know iconic and larger-than-life, and what it means.

He didn't play. Former Cardinal Brendan Ryan started at short, and he played well. We were disappointed, but not too much. Once a Cardinal, always a Cardinal.

But in the middle of the sixth, the Cardinals showed a video, interspersed with Jeter highlights, and tributes from Cardinals players. The crowd got louder; somebody in the dugout pushed Jeter out there, as if to say, "Get out there! There's a reason everybody wants to play here."

He came out, tipped his cap, and found out why. Some say the tributes have been too much. I disagree; when you truly love this game, when it's in your blood, there is plenty of love to be had, and it's not too much for one so great.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un