Alright, I’m going to say it…where’s the love? Wednesday night, in a game against the Marlins in South Florida, Michael Young tied Ivan Rodriguez's club mark of 1,747 hits in the seventh, then drove a 2-2 fastball from Florida reliever Jay Buente one inning later into center field for the record and a three-run lead. Young has flourished throughout his career in those situations, but never before had something else so personally significant been on the line. He now has 1,748 hits and a deeper appreciation for the significance of the mark now that he has it. But where is the appreciation for him from the fans and the media for this career defining milestone? Practically nowhere to be found, that’s where. Sure, ESPN managed to get the stat out before moving on to highlights from the Yankees game, the local radio station that covers the Rangers went on and on about it without receiving one call from the fans, and the local and national press buried it in their daily game recaps…but, where is the parade, where are the fans holding vigil at the ballpark, and where is the love that our understated team leader deserves?
You all know that I am a diehard Rangers fan. I elate at their good times, crumble in their rough times, and wager every year that they will make the playoffs (even when it is apparent they won’t). Some may say that I like to love a loser (and judging by past relationships, that might be true), but I contend that I love to love the home team. Born and raised in Dallas, I didn’t have any other team that represented baseball but the Rangers. I am part of the first generation of lifelong Rangers fans, being born ten years after the club moved to Texas. When I think of pitching, I think of Charlie Hough and Nolan Ryan. When I think of catchers, I think of Jim Sundberg and Ivan Rodriguez. When I think of fielders, I think of Buddy Bell and Rusty Greer (personal hero). And when I think of managers, I think of Bobby Valentine and Johnny Oates. These were my baseball heroes growing up. Not anyone else on any other team, no matter how good, could compare to these guys. Michael Young has been on my list of baseball heroes since he made his debut on September 29, 2000, for the Texas Rangers. He’s a six time All-Star (All-Star Game MVP in 2006), an American League batting champion (2005), and a Gold Glove Award winner (2008). He is the consummate professional, usually first in the clubhouse on game day, and the strong silent leader of a team that has been down and been up throughout his career here. If you asked me, I’d retire his number tomorrow, because after Michael Young’s presence on this team, no one else should where the number 10 here again.
Just how great is this guy? Aside from being a career .303 hitter, he is humble as all get out. Late last year when Derek Jeter became the New York Yankees' all-time hits leader, he received a congratulatory call from Michael Young. During the conversation, Jeter said he just wanted to get the thing done with as quickly as possible because there were bigger things to focus on. After the game, sipping on an ice-cold Presidente beer, Young really understood why Jeter felt the way he did. "I might have gone up there on Tuesday thinking about trying to get hits instead of hitting," Young said. "That's not my approach. When I came to the park today, I said, 'What's my approach? OK, lock it in.' Now, I can focus on the bigger picture. The reason I wanted to get this over with as soon as possible was so it didn't become a focal point. We can all focus on what's really important." That is, of course, for the Rangers to reach the playoffs for the first time in Young's career and in 11 years overall. That singular goal, not the various categories in which he either leads the Rangers franchise or those in which he is quickly climbing up the list, is what drives Young. Always has. It's only that it has become more realistic in the last year or so. Michael Young is a team player and he finds true success in the victories of his team. “…the most important thing tonight was getting a win," said Young.
So, I ask again, whether he wants it or not…where is the love? Well, according to my source at Fox Sports Southwest, there will be a pregame ceremony in recognition of his achievement July 10, when the Rangers face Baltimore at Texas Rangers Ballpark in Arlington (really, three weeks from now!?). Not exactly what I would hope for when questioning the love, but you take what you can get. And just like with Michael Young, sometimes the greatest things come in the most unassuming packages.
Congrats, Mike!
Friday, June 18, 2010
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Vehicular Aggression
The standard Safe Practices for Motor Vehicle Operations, ANSI/ASSE Z15.1, defines defensive driving as "driving to save lives, time, and money, in spite of the conditions around you and the actions of others." This definition is taken from the National Safety Council's Defensive Driving Course. It is a form of training for motor vehicle drivers that goes beyond mastery of the rules of the road and the basic mechanics of driving. Its aim is to reduce the risk of driving by anticipating dangerous situations, despite adverse conditions or the mistakes of others. This can be achieved through adherence to a variety of general rules, as well as the practice of specific driving techniques. I don’t necessarily agree with/adhere to these ideals. I am what some would call an offensive driver (some have described me as aggressive and the terms “road rage” have been used a time or two). This is a product of my childhood mostly and the events of me learning how to drive. I don’t apologize much for my zeal for driving, except when I have a passenger go white knuckle while taking an off ramp through a toll plaza. Some people can handle my aggressiveness and a few have been saved by it (ask my brother). However, it is something I am trying to correct.
I said it was a product of my upbringing and indeed it could be. My father, a good man if not a little reckless behind the wheel, was the inspiration for both my brother and my driving prowess. Our old house that we lived in through elementary school was off of a fairly busy road in our part of town. We had an alley like most the older neighborhoods which didn’t have a convenient way of getting to when coming from one direction on that busy road. So, in order to resolve that problem, our father would often drive the wrong direction on the wrong side of the road in order to get to and from this alley. It was bold and sometimes scary, but absolutely the definition of offensive driving. This is why I got part of my driving gusto from. The other half of it came in high school. Right after I got my license, my two best friends and I drove to the panhandle to campout at one of their relative’s farms. On the way out there we took a more casual approach to driving and had a lot of fun making up names for stuff and talking about women. It was a fun trip. We ended up staying a little longer than expected on our return day and one of the guys needed to get back to spend some time with his girlfriend. We were hauling butt back to Dallas but the route to the panhandle is not all interstate, so we got stuck behind traffic and what-not. Long story short, one of the guys taught the other two of us to drive a little more aggressively. Then, we took it a step further on our own. The guy who had to get back was driving 90 miles an hour at one point down a two lane state highway weaving in and out of traffic (this began a long life of me testing the boundaries of my driving).
Some people don’t get this on the job training, so to speak, and some are just more cautious due to situations that have happened to them. Not me. I did a spinning 540 on an icy toll road my senior year of college and that didn’t phase my driving one bit. I’ve been in numerous other accidents as well, nothing has really changed. Like I said, the only thing that has really got me to calm my driving fire has been having passengers in the truck who were uncomfortable with that type of driving. There have been plenty of them. But, most people don’t seem to mind too much, so I don’t adjust out of it. I have to admit, if I am driving my niece, I am the complete opposite. If my father is around, I am also a lot more cautious (I know I learned some bad driving habits from him, but I don’t want him to know that). There are times when I am rip-roaring around the roads of Dallas when I have pause that isn’t caused by someone in my vehicle. One of those happened today when someone, driving much like me, came speeding off the toll road to deliberately cut me off. How do I know it was deliberate? I was on the access road and sped up to try to make it in front of him before he came out of the toll booth. Somehow, even with navigating the toll booth he sped up to faster than he had been going before and slid barely in front of me as the lanes merged. I don’t think I’ve done anything that extreme before, but I don’t want to be like that regardless. So, next time you are riding with me and you see that I’m being remotely aggressive…remind me to check myself.
Let’s face it; if everyone was just a little bit more defensive in their driving, then the roads might be a safer and happier place.
I said it was a product of my upbringing and indeed it could be. My father, a good man if not a little reckless behind the wheel, was the inspiration for both my brother and my driving prowess. Our old house that we lived in through elementary school was off of a fairly busy road in our part of town. We had an alley like most the older neighborhoods which didn’t have a convenient way of getting to when coming from one direction on that busy road. So, in order to resolve that problem, our father would often drive the wrong direction on the wrong side of the road in order to get to and from this alley. It was bold and sometimes scary, but absolutely the definition of offensive driving. This is why I got part of my driving gusto from. The other half of it came in high school. Right after I got my license, my two best friends and I drove to the panhandle to campout at one of their relative’s farms. On the way out there we took a more casual approach to driving and had a lot of fun making up names for stuff and talking about women. It was a fun trip. We ended up staying a little longer than expected on our return day and one of the guys needed to get back to spend some time with his girlfriend. We were hauling butt back to Dallas but the route to the panhandle is not all interstate, so we got stuck behind traffic and what-not. Long story short, one of the guys taught the other two of us to drive a little more aggressively. Then, we took it a step further on our own. The guy who had to get back was driving 90 miles an hour at one point down a two lane state highway weaving in and out of traffic (this began a long life of me testing the boundaries of my driving).
Some people don’t get this on the job training, so to speak, and some are just more cautious due to situations that have happened to them. Not me. I did a spinning 540 on an icy toll road my senior year of college and that didn’t phase my driving one bit. I’ve been in numerous other accidents as well, nothing has really changed. Like I said, the only thing that has really got me to calm my driving fire has been having passengers in the truck who were uncomfortable with that type of driving. There have been plenty of them. But, most people don’t seem to mind too much, so I don’t adjust out of it. I have to admit, if I am driving my niece, I am the complete opposite. If my father is around, I am also a lot more cautious (I know I learned some bad driving habits from him, but I don’t want him to know that). There are times when I am rip-roaring around the roads of Dallas when I have pause that isn’t caused by someone in my vehicle. One of those happened today when someone, driving much like me, came speeding off the toll road to deliberately cut me off. How do I know it was deliberate? I was on the access road and sped up to try to make it in front of him before he came out of the toll booth. Somehow, even with navigating the toll booth he sped up to faster than he had been going before and slid barely in front of me as the lanes merged. I don’t think I’ve done anything that extreme before, but I don’t want to be like that regardless. So, next time you are riding with me and you see that I’m being remotely aggressive…remind me to check myself.
Let’s face it; if everyone was just a little bit more defensive in their driving, then the roads might be a safer and happier place.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
There's something about (the Blessed Virgin) Mary
Growing up in Texas left me with no shortage of Protestant friends. Sure, there are a lot of Catholics, well, practically everywhere, but there were very few who were friends of mine, at least at my school. So I had Protestant friends, Protestant girlfriends (nothing more fun than dealing with spiritual differences in high school), and Protestant, well, acquaintances. One thing that always came up when we talked about faith was Mary. Catholics have a devotion to Mary that other Christian denominations don’t. I had one friend who said "When I go to a doctor I don't want to talk to his mother" (which I thought was an interesting analogy especially for someone in high school). However, this person always had some sort of family/personal issues and continually asked for me to pray for her. I didn’t turn her away by saying, "Don't talk to me! Don't ask me to pray for you! Go straight to Jesus!" I had compassion and "interceded" (stands in the gap) for her. I prayed for everyone I knew (still do). I had compassion and wanted to assist people in their relationship with Christ. This in no way diminishes Jesus' role as the Lord and Savior.
Catholics ask Mary to pray to Jesus for us. She is interceding, kind of in the way a pastor might pray for you or me. In the Rosary we ask Mary to "Pray for us sinners." And we think she is quite good at that. Mary is a "born again" Christian who received the Holy Spirit at the Pentecost (Acts 1:14, 2:3). She knows how to pray...even in tongues! When I use meditative prayer and visualize myself at the crucifixion I always see Mary at the foot of the Cross. I would like to have that woman pray for me. I ask her to do just that, pray for me. I also ask her to pray for you. I feel her prayers and I thank her for spending so much time praying for our world.
Does hanging out with Mary defocus us from Jesus?
I fielded a question once that said: “Why then would we want to take the focus off of Jesus and pray through Mary, or anyone else for that matter? I also see a lot of the issues surrounding Mary as distractions.” I appreciate concern that attention paid to Mary defocuses from Jesus. It is an interesting choice of words because Mary said the opposite about herself. In the Bible, Mary clearly spells out her role in eternity: My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior. For He has regarded the lowly state of his maidservant; For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed (Lk 1:46-49).
The Bible says Jesus is magnified by Mary's soul. A soul is not limited by life on earth. Mary reinforces her eternal ministry by saying "all generations will call me blessed." If the Bible intended Mary's ministry to end with the birth of Jesus, or at Jesus' death, or even at Mary's death, I don't think it would use that language. A magnifying glass increases the object it is focused on, so being in relation to Mary's eternal soul does not draw focus away from Jesus, it does the opposite. It magnifies him. This is the Bible's word to the people of God.
Catholics believe Mary's soul still "magnifies the Lord" for Christians of our generation who choose to relate to her. Currently, Catholics are pretty well the only ones upholding the biblical prophecy to call her blessed, which was intended for all generations, and for all Christians. My experience with Mary has actually significantly improved my relationship with my Lord and Savior, Jesus. I think time spent with Mary is no more defocusing than time spent with my other Church friends or with my priest. To me the logical end to the "defocusing" theory is that I should never talk to or pray with any other Christians. It suggests I shouldn't go to prayer groups, or even read the Old Testament (because it predates Christ). It suggests I should only talk with Christ alone and never even talk to another human being. To me, that is a definition of a hermit and although it is a valuable calling, I don't think it is for me.
There is a fun argument that says: “... unlike Kings here on earth, God doesn't need a Queen. He has been, He is, and He always will be complete on His own.” Absolutely. God is complete. It is not out of Jesus' incompleteness that he has called angels and saints to join him in ministry. It is not because he is not strong enough and needs help. He could easily snap his fingers and the entire population of the world would suddenly see God and know He exists. He does not need Mary, angels, or saints. Nor does he need you or me. If he loves you and me so much as to invite us to join in his ministry, it is not hard to imagine that he would invite his mother to join in his ministry.
Isn't there only one mediator between God and man?
The argument here goes like this: “Christ is the one and only mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5; Heb. 8:6; 9:15; 12:24)...It cannot be made any clearer in the scriptures that God wants to communicate with us directly, and to be cautious of those who try to step in to mediate.” 1 Timothy 2 does not say that God wants us to only communicate with Jesus. It says there is only one mediator between God and man, which is a different thing. The passage does not say "be cautious" of asking people to pray for us. It doesn't do anything of the sort. The chapter begins by not only allowing intercessory prayer by third parties, but requiring it and indicating that it actually helps bring them to salvation and knowledge of truth. Any mother who prays for her children knows that (as my mother does every night).
I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone ...This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:1-4). In Hebrews 8:6, it says Jesus has obtained a more excellent ministry than any of the high priests. In 9:15 and 12:24 the passage goes on to say he is the mediator of a New Covenant, which Catholics fully agree with. We fully agree he is the mediator. We think Christians in heaven are a heck of a lot more aware of whom Christ is than we are. The Bible says that he has helpers that participate in his ministry by his invitation. We believe he has invited Christians on both sides of heaven to do that.
When a saint enters into the joy of their Master, they are "put in charge of many things" (Mat 25:21). Saints are serious prayer warriors. I don't think that praying with the Saints detracts from the worship of God anymore than praying with friends detracts from worship of God, which I do a lot. Saints are not all knowing, but they know a heck of a lot more about this spiritual game than me. They are creatures. This does not take away the tremendous benefit we can get from communing with them. Catholics think "their intercession is their most exalted service to God's plan. We can and should ask them to intercede for us and for the whole world" (Catechism 2683)
What about praying to Mary? What's that about?
Many Evangelicals think the word "pray" means "worship." So it makes sense that they think Catholics who "pray" to Mary actually "worship" her. Let's look up the word "pray" in the dictionary. Here is what Webster's says about the word pray: (1) To utter petition to God ... (2) To make a fervent request: PLEAD (3) To beseech: implore (4) to make a devout or earnest request for.
The first thing to notice is that the word "worship" is not included in the definition of "pray." It does not mean "worship." A prayer to Mary is clearly not a petition to God. Mary is not God, and there is not one faithful Catholic since the apostles who has said she is. So clearly it is not the first meaning. The English language is often limited in that we often have to use the same word to say different things. There are several meanings of the word "pray." When Catholics pray to God they "utter a petition to God." When they pray to Mary and the Saints they are making a “devout or earnest request for” prayer from Mary or the saints. In mediaeval times when a royal court official was asking something of a person who outranked him, he would say "I pray thee your majesty" (you have to say that in an English accent to get the full effect). The person was simply making a request in a polite manner.
Catholics think Mary is a prayer warrior. That's her job. We think she was given a full-time 24/7 prayer ministry. She said "all generations will call me blessed" and "my soul magnifies the Lord" (Luke 1:46). Catholics think this is significant. Martin Luther said "The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart." (Sermon, September 1, 1522). There is a difference between veneration of Mary and worship of Jesus. John Pacheco says: There is a great difference between veneration ("douleia" in Greek) and worship ("latreia"). The word "douleia" occurs 5 times in the Bible. (Rm 8:15, 21; Gal 4:24, 5:1; Heb 2:15) never does it refer to worship of God. The word "latreia" occurs 5 times but it always refers to God only. (Jn 16:2, Rm: 9:4, 12:6, Heb 9:1,6) And there are plenty of Old Testament references that distinguish veneration from worship. "Then Moses went out to meet his father in law, and he bowed down and kissed him...” (Exo 18:7).
"I don't pray to dead people"
An Evangelical friend said to me one time long ago, "I don't pray to dead people." Catholics don't think heaven is a "dead" place. Catholics believe people in heaven are alive (Mat 19:29, 25:46, Mat 10:17-22, Mk 10:30, Lk 10:25-30, Lk 18:18-30, Jn 3:15-16). We see Lazarus alive by Abraham's side (Lk 16:22). And at the transfiguration we see Moses and Elijah alive beside Jesus (Mat 17:3). There seems to be a lot of conversing in Heaven in Revelation (i.e. Rev 4:10). The Church thinks heaven is a lively place with lots of singing and stuff. Jesus opened the gates to Heaven. "Graves of the dead were opened and they went into town to preach the Gospel" (Mat 27:52). Jesus said "Now he is a God not of the dead, but of the living; for to him all of them are alive" (Lk 20:39-40).
Isn't the Bible against invoking "the dead?"
Some Protestants think that asking a person in heaven to intercede for us is condemned in Deuteronomy 18:10-12. The Catholic Church believes that Deuteronomy 18:10-12 speaks about the occult, soothsayers, sorcerers, spells, ghosts and spirits. It is not about heaven, angels and Jesus. Ghosts have not entered into heaven so it would displease God to talk with them. Also this passage occurs before Jesus was on the scene so no one was in heaven. Samuel was in the ground (1 Sam 28:8-25). They were all in Sheol (dead) so the passage makes sense. Leave them in peace. Catholics believe that it is perfectly safe to ask Christians in heaven to pray for us. Mary is in Heaven and as such she can be a trusted friend. All Christians are baptized into one Body. I see nothing in Scripture that tells me that that relationship ends after a Christian gets into heaven. Martin Luther said: There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven (Sermon, August 15, 1522).
How can Mary be in Heaven before the final Judgment?
There are Protestants who are nervous about asking Christians in heaven to pray for us because the final judgment hasn't occurred yet (Yet they are certain that a Christian's place in heaven is assured the moment they are "born again"). At every funeral (Catholic or otherwise) I hear people saying "He is with the Lord now." They are confident the person is in Heaven. We Catholics think the faithful guy who "dies" is dancing and singing and rejoicing in heaven. If a faithful Christian is alive in heaven, why would we not ask for them to pray for us? And Catholics don't think any Christian has ever been more faithful than Mary.
An invitation - Pray to Jesus about Mary
I hope I have not caused anxiety with this discussion. I wish only to help build a bridge between Catholics and Protestants. I don't believe that avoiding Mary will help build this bridge. I can't see this issue going away, at least in my own life and in the lives of the millions of Christians who are alive in the spirit of Christ and have been enriched by their relationship to Mary. Time spent with Mary does not take away from Jesus any more than time spent with other Christians.
I would like to conclude with an invitation. It may be very difficult and perhaps impossible for some. I would like to ask you to forget everything you have ever heard about Mary, everything that you have ever read about her, including what I have said here.
I would like to invite you to pray to Jesus. Most Christians would agree that it is completely safe to pray to Jesus about anything. I would like to invite you to pray to Jesus about Mary. Simply ask Jesus to show you the truth about his mother. Ask Him to direct your thinking about her. Ask Jesus if his mother is alive with Him. Ask Him if Mary is praying for us. Just pray to Jesus about her. Try this every night for six weeks. I am thoroughly convinced that He will bring you to the truth about his mother.
Catholics ask Mary to pray to Jesus for us. She is interceding, kind of in the way a pastor might pray for you or me. In the Rosary we ask Mary to "Pray for us sinners." And we think she is quite good at that. Mary is a "born again" Christian who received the Holy Spirit at the Pentecost (Acts 1:14, 2:3). She knows how to pray...even in tongues! When I use meditative prayer and visualize myself at the crucifixion I always see Mary at the foot of the Cross. I would like to have that woman pray for me. I ask her to do just that, pray for me. I also ask her to pray for you. I feel her prayers and I thank her for spending so much time praying for our world.
Does hanging out with Mary defocus us from Jesus?
I fielded a question once that said: “Why then would we want to take the focus off of Jesus and pray through Mary, or anyone else for that matter? I also see a lot of the issues surrounding Mary as distractions.” I appreciate concern that attention paid to Mary defocuses from Jesus. It is an interesting choice of words because Mary said the opposite about herself. In the Bible, Mary clearly spells out her role in eternity: My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior. For He has regarded the lowly state of his maidservant; For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed (Lk 1:46-49).
The Bible says Jesus is magnified by Mary's soul. A soul is not limited by life on earth. Mary reinforces her eternal ministry by saying "all generations will call me blessed." If the Bible intended Mary's ministry to end with the birth of Jesus, or at Jesus' death, or even at Mary's death, I don't think it would use that language. A magnifying glass increases the object it is focused on, so being in relation to Mary's eternal soul does not draw focus away from Jesus, it does the opposite. It magnifies him. This is the Bible's word to the people of God.
Catholics believe Mary's soul still "magnifies the Lord" for Christians of our generation who choose to relate to her. Currently, Catholics are pretty well the only ones upholding the biblical prophecy to call her blessed, which was intended for all generations, and for all Christians. My experience with Mary has actually significantly improved my relationship with my Lord and Savior, Jesus. I think time spent with Mary is no more defocusing than time spent with my other Church friends or with my priest. To me the logical end to the "defocusing" theory is that I should never talk to or pray with any other Christians. It suggests I shouldn't go to prayer groups, or even read the Old Testament (because it predates Christ). It suggests I should only talk with Christ alone and never even talk to another human being. To me, that is a definition of a hermit and although it is a valuable calling, I don't think it is for me.
There is a fun argument that says: “... unlike Kings here on earth, God doesn't need a Queen. He has been, He is, and He always will be complete on His own.” Absolutely. God is complete. It is not out of Jesus' incompleteness that he has called angels and saints to join him in ministry. It is not because he is not strong enough and needs help. He could easily snap his fingers and the entire population of the world would suddenly see God and know He exists. He does not need Mary, angels, or saints. Nor does he need you or me. If he loves you and me so much as to invite us to join in his ministry, it is not hard to imagine that he would invite his mother to join in his ministry.
Isn't there only one mediator between God and man?
The argument here goes like this: “Christ is the one and only mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5; Heb. 8:6; 9:15; 12:24)...It cannot be made any clearer in the scriptures that God wants to communicate with us directly, and to be cautious of those who try to step in to mediate.” 1 Timothy 2 does not say that God wants us to only communicate with Jesus. It says there is only one mediator between God and man, which is a different thing. The passage does not say "be cautious" of asking people to pray for us. It doesn't do anything of the sort. The chapter begins by not only allowing intercessory prayer by third parties, but requiring it and indicating that it actually helps bring them to salvation and knowledge of truth. Any mother who prays for her children knows that (as my mother does every night).
I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone ...This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:1-4). In Hebrews 8:6, it says Jesus has obtained a more excellent ministry than any of the high priests. In 9:15 and 12:24 the passage goes on to say he is the mediator of a New Covenant, which Catholics fully agree with. We fully agree he is the mediator. We think Christians in heaven are a heck of a lot more aware of whom Christ is than we are. The Bible says that he has helpers that participate in his ministry by his invitation. We believe he has invited Christians on both sides of heaven to do that.
When a saint enters into the joy of their Master, they are "put in charge of many things" (Mat 25:21). Saints are serious prayer warriors. I don't think that praying with the Saints detracts from the worship of God anymore than praying with friends detracts from worship of God, which I do a lot. Saints are not all knowing, but they know a heck of a lot more about this spiritual game than me. They are creatures. This does not take away the tremendous benefit we can get from communing with them. Catholics think "their intercession is their most exalted service to God's plan. We can and should ask them to intercede for us and for the whole world" (Catechism 2683)
What about praying to Mary? What's that about?
Many Evangelicals think the word "pray" means "worship." So it makes sense that they think Catholics who "pray" to Mary actually "worship" her. Let's look up the word "pray" in the dictionary. Here is what Webster's says about the word pray: (1) To utter petition to God ... (2) To make a fervent request: PLEAD (3) To beseech: implore (4) to make a devout or earnest request for.
The first thing to notice is that the word "worship" is not included in the definition of "pray." It does not mean "worship." A prayer to Mary is clearly not a petition to God. Mary is not God, and there is not one faithful Catholic since the apostles who has said she is. So clearly it is not the first meaning. The English language is often limited in that we often have to use the same word to say different things. There are several meanings of the word "pray." When Catholics pray to God they "utter a petition to God." When they pray to Mary and the Saints they are making a “devout or earnest request for” prayer from Mary or the saints. In mediaeval times when a royal court official was asking something of a person who outranked him, he would say "I pray thee your majesty" (you have to say that in an English accent to get the full effect). The person was simply making a request in a polite manner.
Catholics think Mary is a prayer warrior. That's her job. We think she was given a full-time 24/7 prayer ministry. She said "all generations will call me blessed" and "my soul magnifies the Lord" (Luke 1:46). Catholics think this is significant. Martin Luther said "The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart." (Sermon, September 1, 1522). There is a difference between veneration of Mary and worship of Jesus. John Pacheco says: There is a great difference between veneration ("douleia" in Greek) and worship ("latreia"). The word "douleia" occurs 5 times in the Bible. (Rm 8:15, 21; Gal 4:24, 5:1; Heb 2:15) never does it refer to worship of God. The word "latreia" occurs 5 times but it always refers to God only. (Jn 16:2, Rm: 9:4, 12:6, Heb 9:1,6) And there are plenty of Old Testament references that distinguish veneration from worship. "Then Moses went out to meet his father in law, and he bowed down and kissed him...” (Exo 18:7).
"I don't pray to dead people"
An Evangelical friend said to me one time long ago, "I don't pray to dead people." Catholics don't think heaven is a "dead" place. Catholics believe people in heaven are alive (Mat 19:29, 25:46, Mat 10:17-22, Mk 10:30, Lk 10:25-30, Lk 18:18-30, Jn 3:15-16). We see Lazarus alive by Abraham's side (Lk 16:22). And at the transfiguration we see Moses and Elijah alive beside Jesus (Mat 17:3). There seems to be a lot of conversing in Heaven in Revelation (i.e. Rev 4:10). The Church thinks heaven is a lively place with lots of singing and stuff. Jesus opened the gates to Heaven. "Graves of the dead were opened and they went into town to preach the Gospel" (Mat 27:52). Jesus said "Now he is a God not of the dead, but of the living; for to him all of them are alive" (Lk 20:39-40).
Isn't the Bible against invoking "the dead?"
Some Protestants think that asking a person in heaven to intercede for us is condemned in Deuteronomy 18:10-12. The Catholic Church believes that Deuteronomy 18:10-12 speaks about the occult, soothsayers, sorcerers, spells, ghosts and spirits. It is not about heaven, angels and Jesus. Ghosts have not entered into heaven so it would displease God to talk with them. Also this passage occurs before Jesus was on the scene so no one was in heaven. Samuel was in the ground (1 Sam 28:8-25). They were all in Sheol (dead) so the passage makes sense. Leave them in peace. Catholics believe that it is perfectly safe to ask Christians in heaven to pray for us. Mary is in Heaven and as such she can be a trusted friend. All Christians are baptized into one Body. I see nothing in Scripture that tells me that that relationship ends after a Christian gets into heaven. Martin Luther said: There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven (Sermon, August 15, 1522).
How can Mary be in Heaven before the final Judgment?
There are Protestants who are nervous about asking Christians in heaven to pray for us because the final judgment hasn't occurred yet (Yet they are certain that a Christian's place in heaven is assured the moment they are "born again"). At every funeral (Catholic or otherwise) I hear people saying "He is with the Lord now." They are confident the person is in Heaven. We Catholics think the faithful guy who "dies" is dancing and singing and rejoicing in heaven. If a faithful Christian is alive in heaven, why would we not ask for them to pray for us? And Catholics don't think any Christian has ever been more faithful than Mary.
An invitation - Pray to Jesus about Mary
I hope I have not caused anxiety with this discussion. I wish only to help build a bridge between Catholics and Protestants. I don't believe that avoiding Mary will help build this bridge. I can't see this issue going away, at least in my own life and in the lives of the millions of Christians who are alive in the spirit of Christ and have been enriched by their relationship to Mary. Time spent with Mary does not take away from Jesus any more than time spent with other Christians.
I would like to conclude with an invitation. It may be very difficult and perhaps impossible for some. I would like to ask you to forget everything you have ever heard about Mary, everything that you have ever read about her, including what I have said here.
I would like to invite you to pray to Jesus. Most Christians would agree that it is completely safe to pray to Jesus about anything. I would like to invite you to pray to Jesus about Mary. Simply ask Jesus to show you the truth about his mother. Ask Him to direct your thinking about her. Ask Jesus if his mother is alive with Him. Ask Him if Mary is praying for us. Just pray to Jesus about her. Try this every night for six weeks. I am thoroughly convinced that He will bring you to the truth about his mother.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
You say it's bad, I want it to be worse
With so much news about college sports going around, it is hard not to write about it, so ultimately I will. But, it is going to be really hard after just finding this really nifty article about bizarre state laws that are still on the books. So much more interesting that college sports, but I have to write college sports for an important reason that I will get back to shortly. Right now, I just want to touch on this article about outdated laws. They have picked some interesting ones from all fifty states, but because I don’t care about any other state than Texas (except maybe South Dakota because the bulk of my extended family lives there) I focused on the one they had put in the article from here. Apparently, at one point in Texas history there was an issue with shooting buffalo from the second story of hotels, because there is a law that specifically prohibits that. Funny that the bizarre law from our state has to do with firing weapons indoors, but if you’re going to have an edge on the buffalo, it better not be elevation (like rifles and telescopic scopes don’t give you an edge already). It is nice that law makers decided that the recklessness of excessive buffalo hunting needed to be impeded somehow, but this was the best that they could do? Regardless of the fact that there is an overwhelming absence of significant amounts of buffalo in this state currently, why has this law not been removed/retired. Not that I’m calling for it to be done, because we need to keep protecting the buffalo at all costs (even the cost of convenience from shooting them out of a second story window). Alright, on to what I really was going to write about, the serious lack of balls the NCAA has when dealing with pay-for-play scenarios (and you thought I wanted to write about conference realignment).
Background of the situation is as follows…the NCAA has ruled that the University of Southern California athletic department exhibited a lack of institutional control from 2004 to 2009 for a wide array of rules violations committed in its football, men’s basketball and women’s tennis programs. USC officials said in a statement they planned to appeal the decision. As a result of the violations, which mainly centered on Heisman Trophy-winning running back Reggie Bush (noted NFL bust, in my opinion) and basketball star O.J. Mayo (who?), the NCAA’s probe resulted in USC being hit with multiple penalties. Among them: A postseason ban in football following the 2010 and 2011 seasons; A loss of 30 total football scholarships over the 2011, 2012 and 2013 seasons; A vacation of all football victories starting in December 2004 and running through the 2005 season. This includes the national championship win over Oklahoma on Jan. 4, 2005; All statistics vacated for Bush, Mayo and an unnamed women’s tennis athlete in the games which the NCAA deemed them ineligible due to rules violations; Bush and Mayo must be disassociated from USC athletics; An acceptance of USC’s self-imposed penalties on its basketball program, which included a forfeiture of all wins in 2007-2008 and a one-year postseason ban; All titles won during ineligible games must be vacated and trophies and banners must be removed; A vacation of wins in the women’s tennis program from May 2006 to May 2009, for long distance telephone violations committed by a student-athlete; A reduction of recruiting days for the men’s basketball program in 2010-2011; Four years of probation.
The investigation was split into four primary parts: Bush and the football program, Mayo and the basketball program, an unnamed tennis player and the women’s tennis program, and finally, the failure of the athletic department’s infrastructure when it came to overseeing and policing its programs and athletes. Absorbed in its entirety, the report called the USC investigation “a window onto a landscape of elite college athletes and certain individuals close to them who, in the course of their relationships, disregard NCAA rules and regulations.” The NCAA’s findings were largely built around Bush, Mayo, and USC’s oversight of the pair, with investigators determining the athletes disregarded NCAA rules with a full awareness of their indiscretions. The report indicates the Bush and Mayo were able to engage in rule-breaking at least in part because of USC’s negligence, which included lack of staffing in the area of compliance, lax regulation on the sidelines and in the locker room, and, in at least one instance, a rebuke of running backs coach Todd McNair, who the NCAA cited for lying during the investigation.
After reading about all this (most of which I already expected, because hey, doesn’t every major college program do this?) I found the NCAA’s punishment just a tad limp-wristed. Sure, it will put a hitch in the getty-up of a program that has been literally on a roll for almost a decade, it won’t completely crush them for doing something that is clearly wrong, they knew was wrong, and tried to cover up. After all, this is the worst punishment a major university has been handed since another major program was given the “death penalty” (that’s right, here’s where my passion for this issue comes in, that school was my alma mater, SMU). It’s taken SMU twenty-five years to show significant signs of recovery from that ruling by the NCAA so many years ago, which completely shut down the football program at SMU and made them an example to other schools about the dangers of doing this kind of thing. No one will argue that the “death penalty” was the right way to go with SMU because they were pretty much the first nationally recognized football powerhouse to be accused of such dealings. But, after the lessons learned by that whole debacle, why would any school consider doing anything like that again?
That’s why I have a beef with the NCAA’s decision not to shut down this school’s programs for a year so the full brunt of justice for their indiscretions can be had. Everyone familiar with college football and the NCAA as a governing body knows the story of the SMU scandal. So, the gaul that it took for USC to do these things knowing full well what the punishment could be is appalling. With that being said, they should be punished to the full extent of the NCAA’s power. I am not belittling the punishment that the NCAA came up with, which like I said, will have a lasting impact on USC’s athletic programs for years to come (a potential conference powerhouse that was being formed with schools from the Big 12 and the Pac 10 has seemingly come to a halt after this announcement) as well as on the athletes themselves that were investigated (there is talk that Bush will lose his Heisman Trophy). I am saying that why was an example made of SMU (that many NCAA officials agree was too rough) that is not being used with the next major college program found guilty of pay-to-play. No one has an answer, except to say that the hatred for SMU back then was much greater than any ill will toward USC now. Does my position on this issue have something to do with my dislike of USC…yes, but that doesn’t diminish the fact that USC came off lighter than I would have expected. So everyone in the USC administrative and athletic departments should be thanking their lucky stars they are not where SMU was twenty-five years ago.
Background of the situation is as follows…the NCAA has ruled that the University of Southern California athletic department exhibited a lack of institutional control from 2004 to 2009 for a wide array of rules violations committed in its football, men’s basketball and women’s tennis programs. USC officials said in a statement they planned to appeal the decision. As a result of the violations, which mainly centered on Heisman Trophy-winning running back Reggie Bush (noted NFL bust, in my opinion) and basketball star O.J. Mayo (who?), the NCAA’s probe resulted in USC being hit with multiple penalties. Among them: A postseason ban in football following the 2010 and 2011 seasons; A loss of 30 total football scholarships over the 2011, 2012 and 2013 seasons; A vacation of all football victories starting in December 2004 and running through the 2005 season. This includes the national championship win over Oklahoma on Jan. 4, 2005; All statistics vacated for Bush, Mayo and an unnamed women’s tennis athlete in the games which the NCAA deemed them ineligible due to rules violations; Bush and Mayo must be disassociated from USC athletics; An acceptance of USC’s self-imposed penalties on its basketball program, which included a forfeiture of all wins in 2007-2008 and a one-year postseason ban; All titles won during ineligible games must be vacated and trophies and banners must be removed; A vacation of wins in the women’s tennis program from May 2006 to May 2009, for long distance telephone violations committed by a student-athlete; A reduction of recruiting days for the men’s basketball program in 2010-2011; Four years of probation.
The investigation was split into four primary parts: Bush and the football program, Mayo and the basketball program, an unnamed tennis player and the women’s tennis program, and finally, the failure of the athletic department’s infrastructure when it came to overseeing and policing its programs and athletes. Absorbed in its entirety, the report called the USC investigation “a window onto a landscape of elite college athletes and certain individuals close to them who, in the course of their relationships, disregard NCAA rules and regulations.” The NCAA’s findings were largely built around Bush, Mayo, and USC’s oversight of the pair, with investigators determining the athletes disregarded NCAA rules with a full awareness of their indiscretions. The report indicates the Bush and Mayo were able to engage in rule-breaking at least in part because of USC’s negligence, which included lack of staffing in the area of compliance, lax regulation on the sidelines and in the locker room, and, in at least one instance, a rebuke of running backs coach Todd McNair, who the NCAA cited for lying during the investigation.
After reading about all this (most of which I already expected, because hey, doesn’t every major college program do this?) I found the NCAA’s punishment just a tad limp-wristed. Sure, it will put a hitch in the getty-up of a program that has been literally on a roll for almost a decade, it won’t completely crush them for doing something that is clearly wrong, they knew was wrong, and tried to cover up. After all, this is the worst punishment a major university has been handed since another major program was given the “death penalty” (that’s right, here’s where my passion for this issue comes in, that school was my alma mater, SMU). It’s taken SMU twenty-five years to show significant signs of recovery from that ruling by the NCAA so many years ago, which completely shut down the football program at SMU and made them an example to other schools about the dangers of doing this kind of thing. No one will argue that the “death penalty” was the right way to go with SMU because they were pretty much the first nationally recognized football powerhouse to be accused of such dealings. But, after the lessons learned by that whole debacle, why would any school consider doing anything like that again?
That’s why I have a beef with the NCAA’s decision not to shut down this school’s programs for a year so the full brunt of justice for their indiscretions can be had. Everyone familiar with college football and the NCAA as a governing body knows the story of the SMU scandal. So, the gaul that it took for USC to do these things knowing full well what the punishment could be is appalling. With that being said, they should be punished to the full extent of the NCAA’s power. I am not belittling the punishment that the NCAA came up with, which like I said, will have a lasting impact on USC’s athletic programs for years to come (a potential conference powerhouse that was being formed with schools from the Big 12 and the Pac 10 has seemingly come to a halt after this announcement) as well as on the athletes themselves that were investigated (there is talk that Bush will lose his Heisman Trophy). I am saying that why was an example made of SMU (that many NCAA officials agree was too rough) that is not being used with the next major college program found guilty of pay-to-play. No one has an answer, except to say that the hatred for SMU back then was much greater than any ill will toward USC now. Does my position on this issue have something to do with my dislike of USC…yes, but that doesn’t diminish the fact that USC came off lighter than I would have expected. So everyone in the USC administrative and athletic departments should be thanking their lucky stars they are not where SMU was twenty-five years ago.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Goooooooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllllllllllll!
Call me crazy…but, I am really excited about the World Cup. If you’ve read my blogs before than you know how much I cherish soccer/futbol (seriously, I can’t stand it). But, really, I love the World Cup. It has everything you need in a sporting event, except a really good sport. Honestly, I am a huge Olympics fan (I don’t know how much curling I watched this winter, but it was a lot) and the World Cup brings you all the pomp and circumstance of the Olympics, except with seriously angry inter-country rivalries. It is so awesome, that it completely overshadows the terribleness of soccer. That is basically it. No, I will go into this a little further, but you have to be able to grasp the magnificence of it all.
Let me elaborate the global competition aspect of it all. Sure, I love sports in America. Baseball, football, basketball, and hockey give me all the aggressive competition I need. Plus, think of all the rivalries between cities and states based on these sports teams. I hate Boston with a passion due to the sports teams that call that retched city home. The Red Sox can suck it for all I care. And let’s not forget Los Angeles, which is a pretty crappy town to begin with from what I hear, but it is much worse due to the darn Lakers (there aren’t even any lakes in that city!). And don’t get me started about Philidelphia…the Eagles, gross. People who live in other cities in Pennsylvania don’t even like Philly. Well, take those feelings and apply them on a global scale. Realize how much fun it is to have a deep seated hatred of Brazil. Strap on your stars and stripes then run hooligan-type raids on the “English” pub in your town and learn the joy of throwing pint glasses at people’s heads. And let us not forget Serbia…I don’t know how to creatively insult Serbians, but you get the idea. It is country pride at its finest…fueled with the rage that can only come from drinking continuously while watching a sport that bores the hell out of you. U-S-A! U-S-A!
This is going to seem like a contradiction to what was written above, but the World Cup is the only sporting event where you can let your loyalties be divided (in my opinion). Now, of course we are all Americans (at least I assume so if you are reading this), so our cheers will rise and fall with the success of the US National Team. But, because it’s soccer and who really cares, if you have another favorite team/country, you can cheer for them. I can tell you are going to need an example. Ok, I’m an American, so if I’m going to cheer for someone it will be the US team, but we all know that our chances are kind of slim barring some crazy luck. So, being that I can trace my heritage back to Germany, I cheer for the German team, who would/will have a better chance than the US (seriously, we are not necessarily the team everyone is shaking in their boots about). And this isn’t some passing fancy either, I know more about the German team than I do the US team. For instance, I know that Germany is in Group D, their first game is against Australia (6/13), and my boys Miroslav Klose and Bastian Schweinsteiger (I love that name) are back on the squad this year. But seriously, I am a team USA fan and will be behind them all the way (no, more seriously, go Germany!).
I’m going to be honest with you, in the middle of writing this blog I left and went fishing with a friend, so I am not on my original train of thought, so I am going to go. I hope you enjoyed what I got out so far and if you feel like I need to be more verbose about what I’m saying with this World Cup thing, just leave a comment.
Let me elaborate the global competition aspect of it all. Sure, I love sports in America. Baseball, football, basketball, and hockey give me all the aggressive competition I need. Plus, think of all the rivalries between cities and states based on these sports teams. I hate Boston with a passion due to the sports teams that call that retched city home. The Red Sox can suck it for all I care. And let’s not forget Los Angeles, which is a pretty crappy town to begin with from what I hear, but it is much worse due to the darn Lakers (there aren’t even any lakes in that city!). And don’t get me started about Philidelphia…the Eagles, gross. People who live in other cities in Pennsylvania don’t even like Philly. Well, take those feelings and apply them on a global scale. Realize how much fun it is to have a deep seated hatred of Brazil. Strap on your stars and stripes then run hooligan-type raids on the “English” pub in your town and learn the joy of throwing pint glasses at people’s heads. And let us not forget Serbia…I don’t know how to creatively insult Serbians, but you get the idea. It is country pride at its finest…fueled with the rage that can only come from drinking continuously while watching a sport that bores the hell out of you. U-S-A! U-S-A!
This is going to seem like a contradiction to what was written above, but the World Cup is the only sporting event where you can let your loyalties be divided (in my opinion). Now, of course we are all Americans (at least I assume so if you are reading this), so our cheers will rise and fall with the success of the US National Team. But, because it’s soccer and who really cares, if you have another favorite team/country, you can cheer for them. I can tell you are going to need an example. Ok, I’m an American, so if I’m going to cheer for someone it will be the US team, but we all know that our chances are kind of slim barring some crazy luck. So, being that I can trace my heritage back to Germany, I cheer for the German team, who would/will have a better chance than the US (seriously, we are not necessarily the team everyone is shaking in their boots about). And this isn’t some passing fancy either, I know more about the German team than I do the US team. For instance, I know that Germany is in Group D, their first game is against Australia (6/13), and my boys Miroslav Klose and Bastian Schweinsteiger (I love that name) are back on the squad this year. But seriously, I am a team USA fan and will be behind them all the way (no, more seriously, go Germany!).
I’m going to be honest with you, in the middle of writing this blog I left and went fishing with a friend, so I am not on my original train of thought, so I am going to go. I hope you enjoyed what I got out so far and if you feel like I need to be more verbose about what I’m saying with this World Cup thing, just leave a comment.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Are Catholics actually Christians? Um...yes!
As is often the case when I look into questions or situations pertaining to writing about something religious, I am a little disturbed. Let me get the back story out first. While enjoying the Rangers game Friday night at the ballpark with a guest, we got into a religious discussion which involved mostly their asking questions and me answering (or trying to answer) them. I will not go through everything nor divulge exactly who my guest was or their background, but as with many discussions involving Catholicism that one annoying question came up. It doesn’t matter how you word it, but it calls into doubt whether Catholics are Christians. To me, that doesn’t really seem like a legitimate question…seriously, the history of the Catholic Church starts with Christ appointing (St.) Peter the head of His church. Enough said, right? Not for everyone. Before I get into that, I must say that you should not misinterpret this blog as a fire-back or rebuttal to that person’s question. They were being sincere, honest, and agreeable with asking me questions and trying to learn more about what I believe. I’m often flattered when people come to me for their questions about Catholicism because that means they assume I know a great deal about my faith and can answer said questions (sometimes their assumptions are wrong). So in writing this blog I am just informing everyone out there of what is being said about Catholic’s position in Christianity. Some of this is kind of disturbing, some of it is funny, and some of it is just downright rude, but being a Catholic often means that you have to deal with the “rude” because of what you believe.
There was a time when I thought addressing this question as the topic for a blog was unnecessary. Of course, Catholics are Christians. Why would anyone ever question this? But, with all the misinformation and falsities that abound about Catholicism, I feel it is time to address this very question. You might have heard that Catholicism is a cult or that because of one reason or another Catholics are not Christians. This is simply not true! In fact the Catholic Church is Jesus’ pilgrim church on earth (I mentioned Peter earlier, yeah, that). All Christian denominations broke away from the Catholic Church, or from a denomination that did. This is historical fact. Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P., from the Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN, Catholic TV, basically) puts it pretty simply, “For Catholics "Christian" has come to include all those who have been baptized, including many who do not accept all of the deposit of the faith. For us, to be a Catholic is to accept all of the teachings of the early Church.” Now, that is a wholly simplified answer to what becomes a more and more complex question over the years. So, let’s get down to it.
But let’s go step-by-step. First, let’s look at some definitions. What does catholic mean? What does Catholic mean? How is Catholicism defined? And how is Christianity defined? My trusty Webster dictionary tells me the following:
catholic – 1: comprehensive, universal 2: of, relating to, or forming the church universal
Catholic – 1: a person who belongs to the universal Christian church
Catholicism – 1: the faith, practice or system of Catholic Christianity
Christianity – 1: the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic and Protestant bodies 2: conformity to the Christian religion
Wikipedia.com states the Catholic Church is the largest Christian Church with its members numbering over half of all Christians and one sixth of the world’s total population.
Christianity is defined on Wikipedia.com as “a monotheistic religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as recounted in the New Testament.” Present day Christianity is comprised of four main groups (due to theological reasons some reject being classified as Christian denominations): Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestants and other Catholics (those not in communion with the Pope), and Restorationists (those who believe they are restoring the original version of Christianity).
Now we’ll get to some of the arguments that non-Catholics have for why Catholics are not Christians and the answers/rebuttals to those assertions:
Why call yourselves Catholic, and not simply Christian?
If I’ve seen/heard this once, I’ve seen/heard it a thousand times: "If you are truly Christian then why do you call yourselves Catholic? Believers were called Christian in Acts 11 and no other denomination or religion.”
I could ask the same question, "Why do Baptists, Pentecostals, Methodists, or even nondenominational communities use those words and not simply say Christian?" The word Catholic was used by the year 110 A.D. to distinguish the Church of the Apostles from heretical teachings. St. Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of St. John, along with St. Polycarp. The Church historian Theodoret says Ignatius was consecrated bishop by St. Peter, the apostle, who was the first bishop of Antioch before returning to Rome. Ignatius was martyred in Rome under Emperor Trajan's rule. It was during the journey to Rome that he wrote his famous letters that contain invaluable information about the early Church. He was the first to document the term "Catholic" in its current form to describe the Church. It means universal. Ignatius' use of the word shows it was in common use. His is the earliest extant writing which has "ekklesia katholicos" where Catholic is an adjective modifying "Church" in the nominative. In Acts 5:11 and 15:22 we find "holen ten ekklesian." It is derivative of the same root as “katholicos” and is in the nominative and is translated as "The Whole Church" and then in Acts 9:21 we find “ekklesia kathholes” and here Catholic is also an adjective, but it does not modify "Church" because it is in the wrong case but rather modifies the words following. Best translated as "the Church throughout the whole of..." These terms where all in common usage during the time of the Apostles ministry.
In the early Church, in the Bible, wasn't it was called "the way?"
Mark Bonocore answers: The early Church was called BOTH "Orthodox" and "Catholic." St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of the Apostles (mentioned above), calls the Church by both these names as early as A.D. 107. The term "the Way" was used by Jewish Christians to describe the Christian Faith of the New Covenant to non-Christian Jews. From the Jewish Christian point of view (and indeed from the point of view of both the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church today) the Church of Jesus Christ is not something separate from Israel, but is the true Israel …the true manifestation of the Chosen People (see Gal 6:16, 1 Peter 2:9-10, etc.). This is why the Eastern Church is correct to refer to the saints of the Old Testament as "St. Abraham" and "St. Moses," etc. For, we are not a replacement for Israel of old, but an unbroken continuation of Israel under the promised King and Messiah of Israel, and His Church is His Kingdom of Israel, expanded to include all the Gentile peoples of the earth. And so, in Acts of the Apostles, when you have Jewish Christians addressing their fellow Jews who are not yet full Christians, you will see them refer to it as "the Way"…that is, the true manifestation of Israel…the "sect" that truly represents Israel, as opposed to the other Jewish sects (the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Zealots, etc.) who did not recognize the true King of Israel, Who is the only "Way"…the "Way, the Truth, and the Life." But, when Gentile Christians spoke of the Church, they stressed its truth and its universality; and this is why and how the terms "Orthodox" and "Catholic" were applied to the Church. And those two terms exist today.
We Christians are the only ones who follow the true faith of Jesus Christ.
The modern Evangelical movement is a result of numerous splits that occurred after the Reformation, in the 1500's. The only other Church not to be in union with Rome before that was the Orthodox Church which split off in 1054 A.D. There were also various heresies that came and went, such as Arianism that said Jesus was not fully human AND fully God.
Some Evangelicals claim they have a direct connection to the early Church of the first centuries that bypasses Catholicism. If that is so, I would think the beliefs of modern Evangelicals would reflect the beliefs of the early Church. However, any time spent studying the Church Fathers will make it abundantly clear that early Christian beliefs were Catholic. The Church Fathers believed in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, honored Mary, had elaborate ceremonies, prayed for the dead, respected the Church hierarchy, baptized babies, appointed bishops, recognized Peter as the Rock, built the Church upon him with successors and followed a rich tradition of Christianity. That was the Christianity of the early days, and is the Catholic Church of today. Beginning with the apostles, century after century, Catholics died so that Christ's message would reach the nations. Yes, we are Christians, the originals if you were. Whether or not someone agrees with Catholic doctrine is their prerogative. But all who look at history will admit that Catholics are clearly Christian. "No one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Corinthians 12:3). Jesus has called Christians to unity "that they may all be one, as you Father, are in me and I am in you" (John 17:21). I hope we can love one another as He has loved us (John 13:34). Jesus Christ is Lord of all. If you have never made a personal decision for Christ, I beg you to do so now. It was the best thing I ever did and continue to do.
If Catholics are Christian, then why isn’t their faith rooted in the Bible?
Really? Where do you think the Bible came from in its present form? The Catholic Church protected the Bible across the ages until the Gutenberg press was invented. Century after century, monks in Monasteries faithfully copied Scripture. It would take each monk ten years to copy one Bible and thousands of faithful Catholics dedicated their lives to this work. Catholics protected the Bible over the centuries of wars, famines, plaques, the fall of Rome, fires, and threats from all sides. This was long before any other denomination existed.
Did I mention the Catholic Church chose which books to include in the Bible? In the Synod's of Hippo (393 AD) and confirmed it at Carthage (397 A.D.). The non-Catholic Bible scholar Peter Flint, who won "best popular book" from the Biblical Archeology Society for his translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, tells us that there was no Bible until 397 A.D. when the Catholic Church decided on what books belong there. Before that there were hundreds of letters and the Septuagint. He said: "Without the Catholic Church you have no Bible!" Even the word Bible is not in the Bible. It was coined by Catholics. It means books from the Greek word “byblos” meaning "papyrus", from the ancient Phoenician city of Byblos which exported papyrus, the "paper" of the day. We Catholics love the Bible. Honest! I personally love the Bible so much that I have six copies in three different translations.
Catholicism teaches that salvation is found through faith and works, but the Bible states that salvation is only found through faith.
This was brought up in our discussion on Friday night. My answer was that I believe that my salvation is through Jesus Christ. Having read several discussions of this argument today, there seems to be a misunderstanding between the people making this argument as to what “works” means. Some say that “works” refers to the Sacraments, to which I say that the Sacraments help us attain grace which aids us in becoming closer to God in our lives. By no means does it imply that they are needed for salvation. Others say that “works” refers to The Precepts of the Church (attend Mass on Sunday, confess your sins once a year, receive Communion at least during the Easter season, observe days of fasting, and tithe), to which I say that these are guidelines to the practice of Catholicism (rooted in early Church tradition) but nowhere is it said that they are needed for salvation.
I profess what I believe every Sunday in Mass through reciting the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed is an ecumenical statement of Christian faith and beliefs. A central doctrine of the creed is the Trinity. This creed, opposed by some groups, is accepted by many Christian churches. The Nicene Creed states:
"We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come."
Nowhere in there do I say/see that my salvation is dependent upon “works”. I do see where it states “for us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven”. “He” is referring to Jesus Christ, part of the Trinity (an original Catholic belief), and Son of God in human form. That’s where my salvation lies, with Christ.
So, why then would anyone dispute the fact that Catholics are Christians? My first answer would be, honestly I don’t know. But in seeing all the misinformation (like one site I found where they were using the Catechism of the Catholic Church to reinforce their arguments but taking passages clearly out of context and interpreting them without understanding of what the Church was saying) about Catholicism on the internet, I believe that is the root of it. The misinformation (perpetuated through generations of anti-Catholic sentiment rooted in the bitterness of the Protestant Reformation) is the problem…not the internet. If someone is searching for information about Catholicism and happens upon an anti-Catholic site, or speaks to a misinformed individual, he or she could very well come away with a false understanding of Catholicism. This false understanding then might lead to someone believing that Catholics are not Christians.
Let me just startle you with something I found. When you read this ask yourself who are really the Christians here, Catholics who practice centuries old faith based on scripture and tradition passed down by the first followers of Christ, the Apostles, or the people with websites that belittle their fellow followers of Christ by writing this:
“The Roman Catholic Church teaches another gospel (faith plus works) and worships a different 'Jesus' (the dead, joyless one on their cross). Therefore, those who believe in the Roman Catholic 'gospel' cannot be saved. If you can't discern a false gospel and a false church, then you can't discern the true gospel and the true church. If you cannot discern a false gospel and a false church, then you are in very serious spiritual trouble...”
Yeah, a Christian actually wrote that.
There was a time when I thought addressing this question as the topic for a blog was unnecessary. Of course, Catholics are Christians. Why would anyone ever question this? But, with all the misinformation and falsities that abound about Catholicism, I feel it is time to address this very question. You might have heard that Catholicism is a cult or that because of one reason or another Catholics are not Christians. This is simply not true! In fact the Catholic Church is Jesus’ pilgrim church on earth (I mentioned Peter earlier, yeah, that). All Christian denominations broke away from the Catholic Church, or from a denomination that did. This is historical fact. Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P., from the Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN, Catholic TV, basically) puts it pretty simply, “For Catholics "Christian" has come to include all those who have been baptized, including many who do not accept all of the deposit of the faith. For us, to be a Catholic is to accept all of the teachings of the early Church.” Now, that is a wholly simplified answer to what becomes a more and more complex question over the years. So, let’s get down to it.
But let’s go step-by-step. First, let’s look at some definitions. What does catholic mean? What does Catholic mean? How is Catholicism defined? And how is Christianity defined? My trusty Webster dictionary tells me the following:
catholic – 1: comprehensive, universal 2: of, relating to, or forming the church universal
Catholic – 1: a person who belongs to the universal Christian church
Catholicism – 1: the faith, practice or system of Catholic Christianity
Christianity – 1: the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic and Protestant bodies 2: conformity to the Christian religion
Wikipedia.com states the Catholic Church is the largest Christian Church with its members numbering over half of all Christians and one sixth of the world’s total population.
Christianity is defined on Wikipedia.com as “a monotheistic religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as recounted in the New Testament.” Present day Christianity is comprised of four main groups (due to theological reasons some reject being classified as Christian denominations): Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestants and other Catholics (those not in communion with the Pope), and Restorationists (those who believe they are restoring the original version of Christianity).
Now we’ll get to some of the arguments that non-Catholics have for why Catholics are not Christians and the answers/rebuttals to those assertions:
Why call yourselves Catholic, and not simply Christian?
If I’ve seen/heard this once, I’ve seen/heard it a thousand times: "If you are truly Christian then why do you call yourselves Catholic? Believers were called Christian in Acts 11 and no other denomination or religion.”
I could ask the same question, "Why do Baptists, Pentecostals, Methodists, or even nondenominational communities use those words and not simply say Christian?" The word Catholic was used by the year 110 A.D. to distinguish the Church of the Apostles from heretical teachings. St. Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of St. John, along with St. Polycarp. The Church historian Theodoret says Ignatius was consecrated bishop by St. Peter, the apostle, who was the first bishop of Antioch before returning to Rome. Ignatius was martyred in Rome under Emperor Trajan's rule. It was during the journey to Rome that he wrote his famous letters that contain invaluable information about the early Church. He was the first to document the term "Catholic" in its current form to describe the Church. It means universal. Ignatius' use of the word shows it was in common use. His is the earliest extant writing which has "ekklesia katholicos" where Catholic is an adjective modifying "Church" in the nominative. In Acts 5:11 and 15:22 we find "holen ten ekklesian." It is derivative of the same root as “katholicos” and is in the nominative and is translated as "The Whole Church" and then in Acts 9:21 we find “ekklesia kathholes” and here Catholic is also an adjective, but it does not modify "Church" because it is in the wrong case but rather modifies the words following. Best translated as "the Church throughout the whole of..." These terms where all in common usage during the time of the Apostles ministry.
In the early Church, in the Bible, wasn't it was called "the way?"
Mark Bonocore answers: The early Church was called BOTH "Orthodox" and "Catholic." St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of the Apostles (mentioned above), calls the Church by both these names as early as A.D. 107. The term "the Way" was used by Jewish Christians to describe the Christian Faith of the New Covenant to non-Christian Jews. From the Jewish Christian point of view (and indeed from the point of view of both the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church today) the Church of Jesus Christ is not something separate from Israel, but is the true Israel …the true manifestation of the Chosen People (see Gal 6:16, 1 Peter 2:9-10, etc.). This is why the Eastern Church is correct to refer to the saints of the Old Testament as "St. Abraham" and "St. Moses," etc. For, we are not a replacement for Israel of old, but an unbroken continuation of Israel under the promised King and Messiah of Israel, and His Church is His Kingdom of Israel, expanded to include all the Gentile peoples of the earth. And so, in Acts of the Apostles, when you have Jewish Christians addressing their fellow Jews who are not yet full Christians, you will see them refer to it as "the Way"…that is, the true manifestation of Israel…the "sect" that truly represents Israel, as opposed to the other Jewish sects (the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Zealots, etc.) who did not recognize the true King of Israel, Who is the only "Way"…the "Way, the Truth, and the Life." But, when Gentile Christians spoke of the Church, they stressed its truth and its universality; and this is why and how the terms "Orthodox" and "Catholic" were applied to the Church. And those two terms exist today.
We Christians are the only ones who follow the true faith of Jesus Christ.
The modern Evangelical movement is a result of numerous splits that occurred after the Reformation, in the 1500's. The only other Church not to be in union with Rome before that was the Orthodox Church which split off in 1054 A.D. There were also various heresies that came and went, such as Arianism that said Jesus was not fully human AND fully God.
Some Evangelicals claim they have a direct connection to the early Church of the first centuries that bypasses Catholicism. If that is so, I would think the beliefs of modern Evangelicals would reflect the beliefs of the early Church. However, any time spent studying the Church Fathers will make it abundantly clear that early Christian beliefs were Catholic. The Church Fathers believed in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, honored Mary, had elaborate ceremonies, prayed for the dead, respected the Church hierarchy, baptized babies, appointed bishops, recognized Peter as the Rock, built the Church upon him with successors and followed a rich tradition of Christianity. That was the Christianity of the early days, and is the Catholic Church of today. Beginning with the apostles, century after century, Catholics died so that Christ's message would reach the nations. Yes, we are Christians, the originals if you were. Whether or not someone agrees with Catholic doctrine is their prerogative. But all who look at history will admit that Catholics are clearly Christian. "No one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Corinthians 12:3). Jesus has called Christians to unity "that they may all be one, as you Father, are in me and I am in you" (John 17:21). I hope we can love one another as He has loved us (John 13:34). Jesus Christ is Lord of all. If you have never made a personal decision for Christ, I beg you to do so now. It was the best thing I ever did and continue to do.
If Catholics are Christian, then why isn’t their faith rooted in the Bible?
Really? Where do you think the Bible came from in its present form? The Catholic Church protected the Bible across the ages until the Gutenberg press was invented. Century after century, monks in Monasteries faithfully copied Scripture. It would take each monk ten years to copy one Bible and thousands of faithful Catholics dedicated their lives to this work. Catholics protected the Bible over the centuries of wars, famines, plaques, the fall of Rome, fires, and threats from all sides. This was long before any other denomination existed.
Did I mention the Catholic Church chose which books to include in the Bible? In the Synod's of Hippo (393 AD) and confirmed it at Carthage (397 A.D.). The non-Catholic Bible scholar Peter Flint, who won "best popular book" from the Biblical Archeology Society for his translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, tells us that there was no Bible until 397 A.D. when the Catholic Church decided on what books belong there. Before that there were hundreds of letters and the Septuagint. He said: "Without the Catholic Church you have no Bible!" Even the word Bible is not in the Bible. It was coined by Catholics. It means books from the Greek word “byblos” meaning "papyrus", from the ancient Phoenician city of Byblos which exported papyrus, the "paper" of the day. We Catholics love the Bible. Honest! I personally love the Bible so much that I have six copies in three different translations.
Catholicism teaches that salvation is found through faith and works, but the Bible states that salvation is only found through faith.
This was brought up in our discussion on Friday night. My answer was that I believe that my salvation is through Jesus Christ. Having read several discussions of this argument today, there seems to be a misunderstanding between the people making this argument as to what “works” means. Some say that “works” refers to the Sacraments, to which I say that the Sacraments help us attain grace which aids us in becoming closer to God in our lives. By no means does it imply that they are needed for salvation. Others say that “works” refers to The Precepts of the Church (attend Mass on Sunday, confess your sins once a year, receive Communion at least during the Easter season, observe days of fasting, and tithe), to which I say that these are guidelines to the practice of Catholicism (rooted in early Church tradition) but nowhere is it said that they are needed for salvation.
I profess what I believe every Sunday in Mass through reciting the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed is an ecumenical statement of Christian faith and beliefs. A central doctrine of the creed is the Trinity. This creed, opposed by some groups, is accepted by many Christian churches. The Nicene Creed states:
"We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come."
Nowhere in there do I say/see that my salvation is dependent upon “works”. I do see where it states “for us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven”. “He” is referring to Jesus Christ, part of the Trinity (an original Catholic belief), and Son of God in human form. That’s where my salvation lies, with Christ.
So, why then would anyone dispute the fact that Catholics are Christians? My first answer would be, honestly I don’t know. But in seeing all the misinformation (like one site I found where they were using the Catechism of the Catholic Church to reinforce their arguments but taking passages clearly out of context and interpreting them without understanding of what the Church was saying) about Catholicism on the internet, I believe that is the root of it. The misinformation (perpetuated through generations of anti-Catholic sentiment rooted in the bitterness of the Protestant Reformation) is the problem…not the internet. If someone is searching for information about Catholicism and happens upon an anti-Catholic site, or speaks to a misinformed individual, he or she could very well come away with a false understanding of Catholicism. This false understanding then might lead to someone believing that Catholics are not Christians.
Let me just startle you with something I found. When you read this ask yourself who are really the Christians here, Catholics who practice centuries old faith based on scripture and tradition passed down by the first followers of Christ, the Apostles, or the people with websites that belittle their fellow followers of Christ by writing this:
“The Roman Catholic Church teaches another gospel (faith plus works) and worships a different 'Jesus' (the dead, joyless one on their cross). Therefore, those who believe in the Roman Catholic 'gospel' cannot be saved. If you can't discern a false gospel and a false church, then you can't discern the true gospel and the true church. If you cannot discern a false gospel and a false church, then you are in very serious spiritual trouble...”
Yeah, a Christian actually wrote that.
Friday, June 4, 2010
"We gotta play it one day at a time."
As I sit here at midnight watching the NCAA Women’s College World Series opening round, I am thinking about all those fun afternoons I used to have cheering on the Lady Rams of Berkner High School in Richardson. I recall the chants that would come from the dugout, the stomping of cleats, and the clapping of the abnormally subdued fans in the stands. Then, I remember myself…the loudest person there…yelling out the nicknames of my friends at the top of my lungs and smiling as those around me looked on with skeptical eyes. I loved softball for the same reasons I love baseball. It’s a team sport where what you do individually can make or break your team’s success. It’s outdoors, in the spring and summer, which is usually beautiful (if not completely, smothering hot). There’s the crack of the bat, the hustle for the ball, and the close calls by the umpires. You can smell the nachos, the fresh cut grass, and the intoxicating scent of infield dirt (an acquired taste). Don’t forget the fly balls, line drives, homeruns, worm burners, dying quails, and ground balls with eyes. Everything that makes football great…brute force and intense struggle…is juxtaposed by baseball…precise power and easygoing finesse. Now that I’ve told you why I have a unique love of the stick and balls sports, baseball and softball, I will tell you what is pissing me off about them. Change. This constant need to continue to change the rules and regulations is a threat to a game which true fans still refer to as “America’s pastime”.
Here’s the situation, the most recent one, anyway. Detroit Tigers pitcher Armando Galarraga was in the ninth inning working on a perfect game (what would be the third one of this year). A simple ground ball play for the third out of the inning in which Galarraga had to move over to cover first was mysteriously boned. Not by Galarraga, who made it over to first, received the ball, and stepped on the bag before the batter got there, but apparently by umpire Jim Joyce. Galarraga will likely move on with his major league career with the stinging knowledge that only one of the worst blown calls in baseball history prevented him from becoming the 21st pitcher to throw a perfect game. You can't say the same for Joyce, a 23-year veteran whose reputation went done the crapper when he inexplicably called Cleveland's Jason Donald safe at first with that infield hit. I didn’t see the play live because why the hell would I be watching the Tigers/Indians game? But I did see the replays that clearly showed that Galarraga's foot beat Donald to the bag by a full step. Galarraga handled the situation the way you would expect a major league professional to, by sucking it up, getting back on the mound and getting the next guy out. Tigers manager Jim Leyland handled it the way you would expect a major league manager to handle it by chewing Joyce out both directly after the play and right after the end of the game.
First, let me say that I commend Armando Galarraga how cool and level headed he was both during the game and after the game in interviews. And Jim Joyce, after seeing the replay, realized he screwed up and apologized in postgame interviews as well. As I was watching Baseball Tonight on ESPN it all started. Karl Ravich went all “instant replay needs to be expanded” and my blood pressure went through the roof. That’s right, I’m not bringing up this situation to rally behind the rest of you bleeding hearts out there who want every call to be perfect no matter how much you bastardize the game. I’m here to tell you that the most important part of baseball, the most influential, the most interesting part of baseball is the fact that calls are made on the field by real men (who can make mistakes, and do) without the need for or use of instant replay. Now yes, baseball has changed over the years with some things I agree with (the designated hitter) and some things I disagree with (Astroturf). Change is needed to adjust with the times, but instant replay has been around a while…baseball hasn’t needed it yet and it doesn’t need it now.
I could innumerate all the reasons why think that instant replay in baseball would be terrible, but do you really want me to waste your time with that? Probably not. The real thing that needs to be looked at here is how do you want to handle a professional sport that has been thriving for years without the need of much modern intervention? You let it ride, that is what you do. I don’t know if many of you have noticed, but when there is a bad call or even the rare blown call the only people who are really shaking the trees are the ones who suffer from the call in question. As a fan, just this year, I saw a terrible call against my team, the Rangers, that could have been turned around with instant replay and wasn’t. Josh Hamilton had an obvious homerun according to multiple camera angles of replays, but the umpire on the field ruled it a ground rule double. When the manager came on the field to argue the call the umpires refused to review the hit, as it is the umpire’s discretion to use said replay in any circumstance. Would this be the same for all replays? Then who is to say that Jim Joyce wouldn’t have refused to review the call on that play that killed Galarraga’s perfecto? Exactly, no one. And if you want to have different rules for different replay reviews in different situations, then how are the fans going to deal with that? How will managers and players deal with that? Exactly, you have no answer. If there was no replay option and things stayed as they are what would happen? Absolutely nothing. Nothing is better than “I don’t know”. Keep instant replay review out of baseball.
I’ll leave you with this…
[Larry jogs out to the mound to break up a players' conference]
Larry: Excuse me, but what the hell's going on out here?
Crash Davis: Well, Nuke's scared because his eyelids are jammed and his old man's here. We need a live...is it a live rooster?
[Jose nods]
Crash Davis: …we need a live rooster to take the curse off Jose's glove and nobody seems to know what to get Millie or Jimmy for their wedding present.
[to the players]
Crash Davis: Is that about right?
[the players nod]
Crash Davis: We're dealing with a lot of shit.
Larry: Okay, well, uh... candlesticks always make a nice gift, and uh, maybe you could find out where she's registered and maybe a place-setting or maybe a silverware pattern. Okay, let's get two! Go get 'em.
…an example of what is really on players’ minds during a ballgame.
Here’s the situation, the most recent one, anyway. Detroit Tigers pitcher Armando Galarraga was in the ninth inning working on a perfect game (what would be the third one of this year). A simple ground ball play for the third out of the inning in which Galarraga had to move over to cover first was mysteriously boned. Not by Galarraga, who made it over to first, received the ball, and stepped on the bag before the batter got there, but apparently by umpire Jim Joyce. Galarraga will likely move on with his major league career with the stinging knowledge that only one of the worst blown calls in baseball history prevented him from becoming the 21st pitcher to throw a perfect game. You can't say the same for Joyce, a 23-year veteran whose reputation went done the crapper when he inexplicably called Cleveland's Jason Donald safe at first with that infield hit. I didn’t see the play live because why the hell would I be watching the Tigers/Indians game? But I did see the replays that clearly showed that Galarraga's foot beat Donald to the bag by a full step. Galarraga handled the situation the way you would expect a major league professional to, by sucking it up, getting back on the mound and getting the next guy out. Tigers manager Jim Leyland handled it the way you would expect a major league manager to handle it by chewing Joyce out both directly after the play and right after the end of the game.
First, let me say that I commend Armando Galarraga how cool and level headed he was both during the game and after the game in interviews. And Jim Joyce, after seeing the replay, realized he screwed up and apologized in postgame interviews as well. As I was watching Baseball Tonight on ESPN it all started. Karl Ravich went all “instant replay needs to be expanded” and my blood pressure went through the roof. That’s right, I’m not bringing up this situation to rally behind the rest of you bleeding hearts out there who want every call to be perfect no matter how much you bastardize the game. I’m here to tell you that the most important part of baseball, the most influential, the most interesting part of baseball is the fact that calls are made on the field by real men (who can make mistakes, and do) without the need for or use of instant replay. Now yes, baseball has changed over the years with some things I agree with (the designated hitter) and some things I disagree with (Astroturf). Change is needed to adjust with the times, but instant replay has been around a while…baseball hasn’t needed it yet and it doesn’t need it now.
I could innumerate all the reasons why think that instant replay in baseball would be terrible, but do you really want me to waste your time with that? Probably not. The real thing that needs to be looked at here is how do you want to handle a professional sport that has been thriving for years without the need of much modern intervention? You let it ride, that is what you do. I don’t know if many of you have noticed, but when there is a bad call or even the rare blown call the only people who are really shaking the trees are the ones who suffer from the call in question. As a fan, just this year, I saw a terrible call against my team, the Rangers, that could have been turned around with instant replay and wasn’t. Josh Hamilton had an obvious homerun according to multiple camera angles of replays, but the umpire on the field ruled it a ground rule double. When the manager came on the field to argue the call the umpires refused to review the hit, as it is the umpire’s discretion to use said replay in any circumstance. Would this be the same for all replays? Then who is to say that Jim Joyce wouldn’t have refused to review the call on that play that killed Galarraga’s perfecto? Exactly, no one. And if you want to have different rules for different replay reviews in different situations, then how are the fans going to deal with that? How will managers and players deal with that? Exactly, you have no answer. If there was no replay option and things stayed as they are what would happen? Absolutely nothing. Nothing is better than “I don’t know”. Keep instant replay review out of baseball.
I’ll leave you with this…
[Larry jogs out to the mound to break up a players' conference]
Larry: Excuse me, but what the hell's going on out here?
Crash Davis: Well, Nuke's scared because his eyelids are jammed and his old man's here. We need a live...is it a live rooster?
[Jose nods]
Crash Davis: …we need a live rooster to take the curse off Jose's glove and nobody seems to know what to get Millie or Jimmy for their wedding present.
[to the players]
Crash Davis: Is that about right?
[the players nod]
Crash Davis: We're dealing with a lot of shit.
Larry: Okay, well, uh... candlesticks always make a nice gift, and uh, maybe you could find out where she's registered and maybe a place-setting or maybe a silverware pattern. Okay, let's get two! Go get 'em.
…an example of what is really on players’ minds during a ballgame.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
