Ever Old and Ever New

I am trying not link so much to Zenit since everyone else in the world does, but I cannot resist Father Cantalamessa. Here is what the pontifical household preacher has to say about "what's new:"

The new is not opposed to the "ancient" but to the "old." "Antique," "antiquity," "antique dealer," are positive terms. What is the difference? The old is that which with the passing of time gets worse and loses its value; an antique is that which gets better and acquires value with the passing of time. That is why today Italian-speaking theologians try to avoid the expression "Vecchio Testamento" ("Old Testament") and prefer to speak of the "Antico Testamento" ("Ancient Testament").

Now, with these premises, let us draw near to the word of the Gospel. A question arises immediately: Why is a commandment that was already known in the Old Testament (cf. Leviticus 19:18) called "new"? Here the distinction between "ancient" and "old" proves useful. In this case "new" is not opposed to "ancient," but to "old."

The same Evangelist, John, writes in another place: "Dear ones, I do not propose to you a new commandment, but an ancient one. ... Nevertheless it is a new commandment about which I write to you" (1 John 2:7-8). Is it a new commandment or an ancient one? Both. Share